Albuquerque is great this time of year, but parenting obligations and limited travel budgets will keep me from attending the NFMA rule advisory committee meeting Feb. 22-24.
So I wrote to Tony Tooke, the committee’s designated federal official, asking if the committee’s meeting could be webcast. As some may recall, several of the meetings that led to the NFMA rule’s promulgation were webcast by the Forest Service.
Tony replied that the matter will be discussed. If you’d like to offer your 2 cents to that discussion, Tony’s email is [email protected].
This tells the story of whitebark at Crater Lake National Park. I thought it was interesting that this ecologist felt that having tree species are important to the ecosystem (we sometimes have this discussion, trees or no trees, does it matter?).
The story claims that until the Crater Lake people got interested, nothing was done because people were focused on “timber species” sugar and western white pine. That is not true…people had been working on this for years in Forest Service Region 1…here’s a summary.
I also don’t think that it was clear that “Dorena Forest Research Center” is
Dorena Genetic Resource Center, actually part of the National Forest System and not Forest Service Research Here’s a link to them.
A flood of ash and sediment fills the washes in the white mountains after the fire; photo by Dan Neary
This headline reminds me of the past weekend’s Research Reveals that Elk Eat All Year.
Nevertheless, thought I should post this article… I am looking for the link to the research study. Note: journalists out there- please put the links in your stories.
Here’s the link and below is an excerpt, but the whole piece is of interest.
The researchers spent years exhaustively measuring the contrasting recovery of two stretches of forest, both on Stermer Ridge at the headwaters of the Little Colorado River. They estimated the surviving trees, the amount of wood on the ground, stream flows, soil absorption, the total mass of grass and shrubs and the number of elk, deer, squirrels, rabbits and other animals.
#Watershed A suffered a high-intensity crown fire, which means the flames jumped from one treetop to the next — rather than burning along the ground. The fire killed about 55 percent of the trees immediately — and about 75 percent of the survivors within a year or two. The patch of ground ended up bereft of trees, with even the fire-adapted gambol oaks mostly dying off along with the ponderosas and junipers.
#On the adjacent Watershed B, a road served as a firebreak that halted the crown fire next door. Instead, the fire there burned along the saplings, shrubs and downed wood on the ground. It consumed 5 percent of the trees immediately, with a total of about 15 percent dying from the effects of the fire in the next two years.
#The study demonstrated the dramatic effects of such high-intensity fires.
#For instance, the searing heat of the crown fire fused the soil in Watershed A, sharply reducing the rate at which the ground could absorb water — making it “hydrophobic.” Two-thirds of Watershed A had strongly hydrophobic soil and one third has moderately water repellent soil.
#By contrast, in Watershed B only one-third of the soil was strongly and 15 percent moderately hydrophobic.
#The combination of the loss of the trees and the changes in the soil produced dramatic changes for the next three years whenever it rained.
#For instance, a storm on Watershed A produced a stream flow that was 2,230 times what would have flowed into that same stream with the same amount of rainfall before the storm, according to estimates. By contrast, the storm increased stream flows in Watershed B by about 50 percent compared to pre-fire levels.
#In the fall of 2002, the severely burned area lost about 28 tons of topsoil per acre to erosion, compared to about 17 tons per acre in the moderately burned area. In the spring of 2004, the severely burned area lost 35 tons of topsoil per acre compared to about 20 tons in the moderately burned area. A stable area in a normal year will lose almost no topsoil to erosion.
#The figures offer a sobering cautionary note for Rim Country, whose water future now depends on the Blue Ridge Reservoir, which sits in a small, wet, thickly forested watershed. Payson officials have urged the U.S. Forest Service to make thinning the watershed of the Blue Ridge Reservoir a high priority, for fear a crown fire could cause a dramatic increase in erosion — which would reduce the life of the deep, narrow reservoir.
#The study found that plants, grass and shrubs returned to both areas quickly — with the severely burned area actually producing more grass and shrubs initially than the lightly burned area. That’s probably because in the lightly burned area most of the trees survived and continued to shade the ground and compete for water with the ground cover.
#Elk actually used the severely burned area more than the lightly burned area initially, probably reflecting the initial, denser growth of grass. Mule deer returned quickly to both areas, but in smaller numbers.
#On the other hand, many of the smaller animals like rabbits remained all but absent in the severely burned area — along with pine tree dependent species like Abert’s Squirrels.
#Fewer birds also returned to the severely burned area, probably because they no longer had the diverse habitat offered by the tree canopy.
Yes, you heard some of these observations first by individuals on this blog. I would just comment that people can figure out how to plant trees and get them to grow back. About 40 years ago the Forest Service started a major effort to figure it out. The FS had reforestation experts hired, administrative studies of various cultural practices and nurseries to experiment with practices, investments in refrigerated trucks and tree coolers, etc. If we had a small amount of the bucks directed to downscaled modeling, I bet we could figure it out.
Worcester Street Before Tree Removals from ALB Kenneth R. Law, USDA APHIS PPQWorcester Street After Tree Removals from ALB Kenneth R. Law, USDA APHIS PPQ
Good to share with your local urban tree aficionados..
Practical Advice for Using Insect-Killed Trees
Resource Guide for Forestry Professionals Developed by
U.S. Forest Service, University of Minnesota Duluth
MADISON, Wis. – Millions of dead and dying trees in the United States must be properly used or disposed of as a result of the devastating effects of invasive insects. A new publication released by the University of Minnesota Duluth and the U.S. Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) provides urban forestry professionals guidance for managing this monumental task.
“Wood Utilization Options for Urban Trees Infested by Invasive Species” is a reference for land managers, arborists, utilization specialists, and other natural resources professionals. It provides comprehensive information on wood technology, markets, and technical information for hardwoods affected by invasive species. This free publication is available in its entirety here: http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2012/fpl_2012_brashaw001.pdf
“This manual provides a one-stop shop for understanding how the emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, gypsy moth, and thousand cankers disease are affecting hardwoods,” explains Brian Brashaw, program director of the Wood Materials and Manufacturing program at the University of Minnesota Duluth’s Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI). “It also offers valuable insight into the wide variety of products and markets that are available, and practical advice for considering the many options.”
The publication was designed to be a primary reference for natural resource professionals who are on the front lines in dealing with invasive species, according to Bob Ross, project leader of the Engineering Properties of Wood, Wood-based Materials and Structures research unit at FPL.
“This document is based, in large part, on FPL’s longstanding work on the basic properties of wood and wood products, and includes the most up-to-date developments on ways to mitigate the spread of invasive species in firewood,” says Ross.
Non-native invasive species are causing significant ecological and economic damage in the eastern United States. Since its discovery in 2002, the emerald ash borer alone has killed tens of millions of ash trees in 13 states, and cost municipalities, property owners, nursery operators, and forest products industries tens of millions of dollars.
The reference guide, made possible by a grant to NRRI from the U.S. Forest Service’s Wood Education and Resource Center, focuses mainly on uses for ash trees removed from urban settings. It is organized into four sections:
· An overview of the magnitude of the invasive species problem and use options for infested hardwoods. This includes information on agencies that are addressing the issue as well as a list of trade associations that specialize in manufacturing products from wood affected by invasive species.
· Information on the basic properties of hardwood species that grow in urban areas and may be affected by invasive species. Scientific and common names, physical and mechanical properties, machining characteristics, and other data are summarized.
· Market and use options for U.S. ash species, including detailed information on production considerations, quality specifications, market opportunities, and key trade associations. Uses include lumber, furniture, cabinetry, flooring, biomass, and more.
· Detailed, practical heat sterilization options for treating firewood and solid wood packaging materials made from infested wood. Heat sterilization is currently the most practical and environmentally friendly way to kill pests in solid wood and prevent their transfer to other regions.
The loss of trees due to invasive species in urban areas has been significant, bringing to light the value of often overlooked urban forest landscapes. Urban forests are dynamic ecosystems that provide clean air and water, cool cities and save energy, strengthen quality of place and local economies, improve social connections, and many other benefits.
“The invasive species issue has created an opportunity to engage the public in a discussion regarding the importance of our urban forests and the importance of using the wood generated from these forests,” says Tony Ferguson, director of Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry for the U.S. Forest Service.
The Planning Rule FACA Committee meets next week in Albuquerque and is open to the public. You’ll remember that the need for a committee was discussed years ago during the development of the rule here.
Here’s a link. It would be interesting if someone who is going to be there would post their impressions here.
Here’s a news story that says anyone is allowed to submit their comments in writing.
Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region (5)Here’s the link and below is an excerpt:
As long as I work for the agency, the U.S. Forest Service, I want to make a difference. I will personally promise you that. That is what I want to do,” Gyant assured his rapt audience of nearly 400 loggers, mill owners, lumber company executives, truck drivers, equipment sales people and others packed into Fusaro Hall Thursday, Feb. 7, at the Shasta District Fair grounds in Anderson.
“There is an opportunity for us to get proactive and work together. If we work together, we can get out of all of these lawsuits, protect habitat and species and get enough fiber into our mills,” said Gyant, who toured some of the timber harvesting machinery on display just outside prior to arriving at the breakfast.
“I saw all of those pieces of equipment out there that must cost a half-million (dollars). I know that equipment has to be moving. It can’t be sitting idle on somebody’s low-boy (trailer) out there somewhere if you are going to make payments on it, feed your families, pay the mortgage and keep on top of all of your other bills,” added Gyant.
“You see, I get it,” he continued. “I grew up in a small town on a tobacco plantation. We harvested the yellow leaves every day from 6 a.m. until noon, when it started to get too hot to work. But when we got done with the tobacco, we still had to get the hay up to our dairy cows and milk them because cows never do take a vacation,” said Gyant, now a resident of Vallejo.
Gyant described his job as Deputy Regional Forester as “overseeing the agency’s regional budget, managing timber harvests and transportation systems in national forests, protecting soil, water and wildlife resources, handling NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969), tribal relations and litigation as well as risk management” for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“I signed up for the job I am in and I knew before I took it that it would be a difficult one. But I signed up for the simple reason that I want to make a difference. In 10 or 15 years from now, I want to be able to say that I have made a difference and left things better for my kids,” Gyant said.
The truth is that every federal agency and those who depend on federal spending will be in a world of hurt. So I wonder why Park Service cuts are getting higher levels of coverage or attention?
In some stories, like this one in today’s Denver Post, the retirees seem to be leading the charge.
Rocky Mountain National Park, which also manages the Cache La Poudre River basin, could see $623,000 slashed from its remaining fiscal 2013 budget unless President Barack Obama and Congress reach an agreement to stave off across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect in less than three weeks.
Alarm has been sounded by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees concerning proposed 5 percent budget reductions for the National Park Service.
Colorado is home to 13 national parks, three national heritage areas and numerous other assets under Park Service management, according to the agency’s website.
“This will have ripple effects across the American economy,” said Joan Anzelmo, a spokeswoman for the retired employees coalition who now lives in Jackson Hole, Wyo. Her organization represents more than 900 former National Park Service personnel.
Leaked documents from National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis give us a glimpse at the looming budget crisis that threatens to alter the operating landscape for America’s national parks. The documents paint a dire picture for the NPS and could have a major impact on the overall experience for visitors to the parks in 2013 and beyond.
In a letter from Jarvis dated January 25 of this year, regional, associate and assistant NPS directors are warned that unless Congress and President Obama can come to a fiscal agreement in the next few weeks, they will be asked to make 5% cuts to their budgets across the board. Having already missed a January 2 deadline for the sequestration of funds, the House and Senate have passed a law extending that deadline to March 1. Ahead of that date, the Park Service has already instituted a hiring freeze and has asked for recommendations from the management of each of its entities on where cuts should be made.
In addition to the immediate hiring freeze, the parks have been asked to continue planning for their seasonal hiring, but to not extend any offers until further notice. As the busy summer travel season nears, many of the parks hire temporary employees to help deal with the influx of visitors. For now, filling those positions has been put on the back burner. Furthermore, furloughed employees are to remain so for as long as possible, while overtime has been cut altogether. All non-essential travel has also been canceled and the purchasing of supplies has been cut as the organization strives to save cash.
A second leaked document shows the actual budgets of each of the parks and how much they are being asked to cut in order to make the 5% goal. Some of the hardest hit national parks include Yellowstone, which is being asked to cut $1.75 million, and Yosemite, which will lose $1.4 million in operating expenses. Those two locations aren’t the only ones feeling the pinch, however, as the National Mall will also shed $1.6 million from its budget and the Grand Canyon will cut an additional $1 million.
Unless the budget sequestration is averted before March 1, these cuts could have a dramatic impact on the national park experience for travelers. Understaffed and under-budgeted parks could lead to reduced hours of operation, shorter overall seasons and even the potential closure of certain areas. Visitor services would also likely be hit hard with fewer rangers on duty and less staff in visitor centers and information kiosks.
I do think that the budget process of identifying by unit makes the cuts more concrete to Congressfolks, who are the people who have to act.
Do you think it’s a useful exercise for retirees to raise this issue?
Climate change’s effects on temperate rain forests surprisingly complex
Science-based strategies help managers to adapt to general warming trend
Longer, warmer growing seasons associated with a changing climate are altering growing conditions in temperate rain forests, but not all plant species will be negatively affected, according to research conducted by the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Research featured in the January 2013 issue of Science Findings—a monthly publication of the station—reveals a complex range of forest plant responses to a warming climate.
“ Although the overall potential for growth increases as the climate warms, we found that plant species differ in their ability to adapt to these changing conditions,” said Tara Barrett, a research forester with the station who led the study.
I don’t know who would be surprised by that, nor by the fact that climate impacts on soil microflora, herbivores, and diseases and insects, (not to speak of invasives) may be unpredictable. But “science=based studies will help managers adapt..” well.. OK.
However we also see this one from the synthesis for the National Climate Assessment press release here..
For example, the agricultural report indicates increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, rising temperatures, and altered precipitation patterns will affect agricultural productivity. Climate change will exacerbate the stresses already occurring from weeds, insects, and disease. Increases in the incidence of extreme weather events will have an increasing influence on agricultural productivity. Over the next 25 years, the effects of climate change on agricultural production and economic outcomes for both producers and consumers in the United States are expected to be mixed, depending on regional conditions. Beyond 2050, changes are expected to include shifts in crop production areas, increases in pest control expenses, and greater disease prevalence.
The forest sector report indicates that the most rapidly visible and significant short-term effects on forest ecosystems will be caused by fire, insects, invasive species, and combinations of multiple stressors. Wildfire is expected to increase throughout the United States, causing at least a doubling of area burned by the mid-21st century.
“This report strengthens our resolve to aggressively continue treating and restoring our nation’s forests to reduce future fire impacts,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “Recent fires in Colorado and other areas throughout the country serve as a grim portent for what we expect to see more of in the future. I’m confident that we have a strong plan in place to keep pace with the impacts a changing climate will have on our forests and grasslands.”
Although some regions will be affected more than others, these disturbances are likely to change the structure and function of ecosystems across millions of acres over a short period of time with detrimental effects on forest resources. Anticipated effects include increased tree mortality, changes in species assemblages, and reduced water quality.
But if we go beyond the press release, we find this..
6. Can U.S. forests adapt to changing climate?
Yes, but not without the help of forest managers and support of the American public. U.S. forests have successfully adapted to changing conditions since the 1880s when coal replaced wood as the primary domestic, industrial, and transportation fuel. Although the U.S. population has nearly tripled, cities have grown, and farming has changed dramatically since then, the area of forests in the U.S. has changed less than 5 percent and forests have continued to provide essential services. But the keys to our success for the past 130 years have been the increase in our scientific understanding of forests and the benefits they provide and public support for active management of forests to meet emerging and future needs. Some forests are already being managed using “climate smart” practices, but much more will be needed —more science and more active management—to help forests adapt successfully to climate changes in the coming 100 years. Resource managers in the USDA Forest Service are already engaged in a wide range of sustainable forest management practices (e.g., reducing hazardous fuels, maintaining structurally diverse forests) that improve resilience to future climate stresses.
Does anyone else wonder why we have so much funding going towards overlapping areas of different downscaled models, and so little to looking at the impacts of practices like oil and gas drilling? It’s really not the “corporate influence” so much as the lack of a “People’s Research Agenda” and the relative flushness of “climate change” funding IMHO.
I don’t know if you have been following the “extreme weather” issue mentioned in the press but Roger Pielke, Jr. had an interesting blog post on that and horsemeat in your lasagna here.
I also think it’s interesting how people use the term “extreme events” see the Q&A mentioned above.
What other effects are anticipated for U.S. forests?
Climate change projections suggest increased variability in temperature and precipitation. Extreme events including dry spells, sustained droughts, and heat waves, can have large effects not only on forests, but on the wildlife and fish living in them and on the people that use forests. Further, the quality of life in rural communities will be affected. For example, a community that depends on forest streams for high quality drinking water may see summertime flows reduced or need to add more pre-treatment if increased soil erosion from heavy rains muddy the water. Tourism will decline if forests die from bugs or wild fires and employment in forest products mills may decline or disappear if healthy forests disappear. Some of these impacts will extend well beyond the rural communities to touch the lives of people in cities far removed from the forests.
“We’re expanding the conversation about what elk need,” state Fish, Wildlife and Parks wildlife manager Mike Thompson said of the new research and policy concepts. “It’s not that you don’t need winter range. But the importance of summer range has been undervalued.”
Research coming out of captive elk herds in Oregon and Washington has painted a new portrait of productive elk habitat, according to University of Montana biologist Mark Hebblewhite. The changes have almost as much to do with the passage of time as they do with fresh observations of elk behavior.
“At the time when a lot of forestry was going on, elk did need places where they could hide,” Hebblewhite said. “Back then, there was lots of forage, but there wasn’t as much mature forest cover for animals.
“Jump forward 20 years, and there’s almost no logging going on in national forests, and we’ve seen a huge reduction in the amount of wood coming out. As the forests have grown older, there’s plenty of places to hide, but not much to eat.”
Elk eat grasses, wildflowers and other forbs that grow best in prairies, meadows, and recently cut or burned forest areas. While they need places in winter where the winds scour snow and ice off the ground (like the summit of Mount Jumbo), they won’t make it to winter without good summer grazing.
“Everybody thinks it’s really great to be an elk in June,” Hebblewhite said. “But that’s when peak lactation (for nursing calves) is highest. If the forage isn’t there, they can be starving in summer. And then the key comes in August and September, when they’ve stopped nursing. Adult females have two months to get back to 10 percent body fat so they can reproduce in fall. That recovery time is when they need to access high-quality forage before they go into winter.”
Studies in Yellowstone National Park have found those summer ranges drying out 20 percent to 30 percent earlier than just a few decades ago as the Rocky Mountain region’s climate has warmed. That’s made it harder for calves to bulk up between weaning and winter.
“If people want more elk, one way to do that is to improve habitat,” Hebblewhite said. “Fire does that, but there’s only certain places we can do that. And July is often best time to burn, when nobody wants more fires and smoke.
“Then there is a role for logging, potentially,” Hebblewhite said. “That’s going to be a tough pill for some environmental groups to swallow.”
and
*
Michael Garrity of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies would agree. Fresh from defeating Custer National Forest officials over a logging plan that would hurt elk habitat, Garrity said the U.S. Forest Service would continue to lose lawsuits if they refused to follow the latest science.
“When they log, it reduces hiding cover and adds roads,” Garrity said. “Elk stay away from roads, and you need roads to log. When they say opening the canopy lets more grass grow, they never found that was a problem that elk didn’t have enough forage. Besides, logging introduces weeds, and elk don’t eat weeds.”
Logging would open new space for elk forage to sprout. However, FWP’s Mike Thompson said it takes very specific logging to make an elk happy. Cutting north-facing slopes can actually cook off the plants adapted to the shady forest cover. Clearing south-facing hillsides can boost early-spring grasses and flowers, but can speed up late-summer drying.
Logging was the enemy when many national forests set up elk “hiding cover” standards in the 1970s and ’80s. One measurement gauged if the tree canopy obscured at least 40 percent of the sky, as measured from the air. Another checked whether there was enough foliage to hide 90 percent of an elk from an observer 200 yards away. Forest Service workers would actually carry a poster into the woods and record how much they could see.
Mountain pine beetles have literally chewed a hole in those benchmarks. The Blackfoot’s 1986 hiding cover standard combined the number of road miles per square mile with the tree thickness measurements. Today, only two of the eight elk herd units in the Upper Blackfoot River drainage have enough trees to meet the Forest Service’s 1986 hiding cover standard.
“Big game security, under the Forest Plan, will not improve in the foreseeable future, because hiding cover will continue to decline as trees killed by the ongoing bark beetle epidemic begin to fall over the next few years,” the Helena National Forest’s proposed travel plan amendment stated. One of the proposed plan’s alternatives closes 190 miles of road but still doesn’t meet the old standard, according to amendment biologist Deborah Pengeroth.
So the new goal is “security cover.” That’s hard-to-reach country, especially big blocks of unroaded country. Based on research developed in the St. Regis and Philipsburg areas, the idea is to have lots of 250-acre or larger parcels that are at least half a mile away from an open road during the big-game rifle season (Oct. 15-Nov. 30). That includes roads that might be open the rest of the year but can be closed during hunting season.
Pengeroth acknowledged there are several problems with that standard. First, 250 acres of forest around St. Regis might not support the same-size elk herd as 250 acres around Lincoln. Second, closing roads during rifle season might miss the impact of surging numbers of archery hunters who start prowling the hillsides in early September.
Both those issues are open to improvement during the 90-day public comment period that ends in late April. Neither addresses the forage question.
“The reason we have this standard is to get some bulls through the hunting season so they make more elk for the next season,” Pengeroth said. “It’s focused on elk vulnerability during hunting season. The forage component may appear in other parts of forest plan at the vegetation management level where we can consider the new science.”
***
That’s frustrated amendment critics like Steve Platt of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. He said lack of hunter involvement in the new standard drafting was going to give poor results for both hunters and elk.
“The main thing we have to deal with is travel management,” Platt said. “I know the public gets riled up when they can’t drive where they always have or where they can get to now. But four-wheel-drives are more powerful than they used to be, and the problem is elk are getting pinched. So they head for places people don’t bother them, which are generally private lands off the forest. And that creates problems for landowners, because they’re hard to get to from a public standpoint.”
FWP biologist Jay Kolbe hopes the new standards can address another critical factor in elk management. The Blackfoot Travel Plan area supports about 1,200 elk during the fall. But just 10 of every 100 is a huntable bull. FWP standards want to see at a bull-cow ratio of at least 15-to-100.
The factor that might best protect those bulls is the size of the security cover blocks far from roads, Kolbe said. And studies of the Blackfoot area indicate 250 acres might not be big enough to keep elk safe from motorized hunters. Making those blocks bigger also could keep the elk from harboring on private land. Kolbe added that the hunting timeframe needed to start in September with archery season, not October’s rifle season.
Much of the elk country in the Blackfoot drainage around the Lincoln Ranger District got its roads from mining, rather than logging. The Forest Service must evaluate those roads based on their impact to public recreation, grizzly bear and bull trout survival, water quality and other factors, as well as elk. The Blackfoot travel plan will guide how many hundreds of miles of roads stay open or closed.
“The Forest Service needs to make a resource-based call,” Platt said. “If we’re going to have more liberal access, it’s going to mean less liberal elk hunting. They’re going to piss a lot of people off, regardless what they do. This travel management stuff is tough.”
So if lots of trees fall down from Mountain pine and ultimately there’s more forage, that’s good, but elk can’t hide there due to roads being around, so need more backcountry? But they could hide before because the trees hadn’t fallen down? But it’s not all lodgepole, so therefore not all dead, is it? Can some Montanans please explain?
Yes, that’s a full-sized log truck to the right of this Exxon-Mobile megaloaded carrying Korean-made tar sands mining equipment bound for the Alberta tar sands oil fields. A federal judge has ruled that the Forest Service should have regulated these megaloads as they traveled along the Wild and Scenic Lochsa River and over Lolo Pass on US Hwy 12. Picture from 2011.
According to the Missoulian U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill has sided with environmentalists and ruled the U.S. Forest Service erred by not exercising its regulatory authority when Idaho allowed huge trucks to haul giant oil refinery equipment along U.S. Highway 12, through a scenic corridor protected by the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The group, Idaho Rivers United, sued the government in 2011 after the state allowed ExxonMobil’s Canadian unit to ship hundreds of so-called megaloads from Idaho’s Port of Lewiston along the two-lane highway. A copy of the judge’s ruling is here.
Idaho Rivers United argues the U.S. Forest Service neglected its duty to intervene, including by allowing 500 trees along U.S. Highway 12 to be trimmed to accommodate oil-gear shipments by ExxonMobil weighing up to 300 tons. The federal agency says it relinquished that authority over the shipments between Lewiston and the Kearl Oil Sands projects in southern Alberta to the state of Idaho….
As early as September 2010, Forest Service leaders in Idaho expressed concern about the ExxonMobil shipments. That month, Clearwater-Nez Perce National Forest supervisor Rick Brazell told the Idaho Transportation Department in a letter that hundreds of oversized loads jeopardize “the experience the traveling and recreating public will have along U.S. Highway 12 through the introduction of overtly industrial elements into the otherwise pastoral environment.”
In the same letter, however, Brazell conceded he was powerless to interfere. “I recognize that I have no jurisdiction to stop these shipments, but I do oppose the idea of allowing this precedent to be set,” he wrote.
For more information about this issue, check out this video produced by some friends.
Monday AM Update: There have been some questions in the comments regarding what the Forest Service’s regulatory authority is in this issue. Here’s a portion of what the judge wrote:
“This line of authority – beginning with the Property Clause and proceeding through the Organic Act, the Federal-Aid Highways Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and finally the Highway Easement’s directive to protect the scenic and esthetic values of the river corridor – is focused on granting the federal defendants the authority to regulate the use of roads over federal land. This authority clearly gives the federal defendants jurisdiction to review ITD’s approval of mega-load permits that authorize acts along the river corridor including the construction of turnouts along the rivers, the trimming of hundreds of trees, and the restriction of the public’s recreational opportunities.”
