Thanks to NAFSR for posting this weekly news roundup from the Forest Service . Here’s the link. If people on this blog are interested, I can highlight here when each week appears.
Observations on Some Current Cases, and Introducing REAL
I think we really need to start a group toward reforming environmental conflict resolution as currently carried out through the court system.
We need an acronym.. for the time being, I will use REAL for “Reforming and Enhancing Appeals and Litigation” as it pertains to environment and natural resource disputes, particularly in public lands. Other acronym suggestions are welcome. You all have given me ideas, plus others outside this blog have, for ideas and actions that we may or may not agree to support in terms of:
1) Increasing transparency, public participation, and accountability in the resolution of disagreements involving public lands,
2) Through either direct action, or influencing legislation or Administration policy.
So I will be rounding up some of those ideas in the next few weeks.
I ran across these three pieces that help make my case for action:
1. (Litigation does not addressing the real issue). This story is “Feds file litigation to weaken ranchers’ claim” here. Where’s the best available, or any, “science” for that matter? Nowhere to be seen. It seems to me like conflict resolution folks could have been brought in on this to mediate the real issues, which seem to be 18% reduction, and not the Constitution. Likely to be more cost-effective to the taxpayer and more effective. But there could be history here that I’m not aware of, so those who know more, please speak up.
2. (Litigation does not address the real issue) Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one. This was in Forbes. This is a big enough deal that many folks are involved, including timber industry, and SAF (needed to be transparent about that). The same arguments could be made that this author makes,about other tinier projects, only without the broad base of (financial and other forms of) support.
On December 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider who is best suited to set national environmental policy – the experienced scientists and regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency or activist trial lawyers.
..
and
The former dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, John Gordon, worries that, “Injecting permit requirements into this [BMP] process will only make the ongoing upgrade of our [environmental protection] methods slower and more expensive, diverting resources from reducing sediment to the legal machinery of permit review and litigation.” “In this case, environmental activists are not on the side of the environment,” he concluded. The EPA agrees; regulators have insisted for decades that permitting was not designed for—and does not work for—forest road runoff even as state forest road BMPs are widely acknowledged to have proven effective and efficient.
When the Supreme Court convenes on December 3rd, the critical question will be whether 35 years of effective regulation from EPA should be surrendered to America’s lawsuit industry.
To be fair, let’s take a look at this fellow’s background here. He is not one of our experienced folks in this area.. still he doesn’t claim that his opinions are a “scientific report.”
3. (Understanding the intricacies of the legal processes is not always easy, plus not addressing the real issue, plus not clear where the scientific information would lead.) Here is a link.
But Monday, U.S. District Court Judge John L. Kane rejected the settlement. At issue is a provision saying if there is a dispute over the implementation of the document, neither side can be found in contempt of court. The judge ruled that provision exceeds the authority of the two sides and could lead to them not reporting violations of the court order.
Tim Ream, attorney for the environmental group, called it a “very esoteric point” and said negotiations continue on reworking the settlement.
Dirt bike groups, who have funded and carried out maintenance work on the trails for years, have blasted the lawsuit as unfairly singling out dirt bike riders from hikers, mountain bike riders and others they say also impact the creek.
“We are not satisfied with the process to date,” said Don Riggle, president of the Colorado Springs-based Trails Preservation Alliance. His is one of three groups representing motorized vehicle riders that have joined the lawsuit as intervenors.
He said he agreed to a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity with the understanding the ban would be in place only for the winter months, until the trails could be realigned, but last week’s settlement differed “in principle.” The document includes no timetable for reopening.
Here’s my information question, if three groups are intervenors, do they get to sit in while the settlement is discussed? To an outsider, seems like they should. Could someone explain how that works? ‘Cause otherwise it looks like a pretty closed door to the public.
Black Friday in the Sipsey: Photos from the Bankhead National Forest
As others have pointed out, often times the focus of this blog seems to inadvertently fall into the category of National Forests in the western United States. Perhaps we just (mistakenly) view issues related to roadless areas, wildfire, old-growth and wildlife to be more western-centric? Well, as we all know, the eastern U.S. is blessed with some remarkably diverse National Forests.
The morning after Thanksgiving, photographer Brandon Phillips and friends hiked off some turkey and stuffing by visiting a few of the special spots in Alabama’s Bankhead National Forest. Check out some of Phillips’ photographs from the trip here. Phillips also has a blog “Down in the Hollow” about adventure, ecology and homesteading in the southern Appalachians.
Two Stewardship Contracts in Colorado- Including Wood for Energy
Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.
“Not only will these contracts help us alleviate the impacts of the mountain pine beetle infestation and reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire, but they also will offer a supply of woody biomass that will be used to produce low-cost heat and a clean, renewable source of electricity,” said Harris Sherman, under secretary of the Department of Agriculture.
Scott Fitzwilliams, supervisor of the White River National Forest, said the work will help restore the landscape as well as produce wood products for everything from lumber to wood pellets to power plant fuel.
West Range Reclamation will remove lodgepole and ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, Engleman spruce and aspen and other tree species susceptible to insect and disease infestations.
The contract is the latest for a forest management company that has completed more than 300 contracts and 70,000 acres of range and forest projects on public and private land in five western states.
“The continued stability of the 10-year project will allow West Range to provide well-paying, steady, year-round work for our current employees and the ability to hire more skilled operators,” said Pam Motley of West Range Reclamation.
“We also intend to do our part to help strengthen local economies by purchasing products and services — such as fuel, food, housing, tools, parts, supplies, rentals and repair services — from local businesses,” Motley added.
Part of the wood removed during the treatments will provide fuel for a 11.5-megawatt power plant planned for Gypsum.
Eagle Valley Clean Energy plans to build the woody biomass plant to supply electricity to Holy Cross Energy and, in turn, an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 homes in Western Colorado.
Heat generated at the power plant will support the operation of an adjacent wallboard factory.
The USDA Rural Utilities Service announced in October a $40 million loan guarantee to help finance the plant.
Eagle Valley Clean Energy estimates the plant will create 107 construction jobs and 41 permanent jobs.
Confluence Energy will remove beetle-killed trees. Where commercially practical, the wood will be used for lumber, wood pellets and other products. The company will pay for those materials to offset the cost of the removal project.
And from another article here..
“The stewardship contracts are especially exciting because it will add to Colorado’s balance of clean, renewable energy by supporting biomass energy — electricity and heat for Eagle Valley Clean Energy in Gypsum and wood pellets for clean and efficient heating at Confluence Energy in Kremmling,” Udall said in the release.
and
“Active management of our multiple use national forest acreage in Colorado is vital as we confront the bark beetle epidemic and grow our forest products industries,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., in a news release. “After a summer of devastating wildfires, there’s an even greater urgency to ensure that our forests are healthy and resilient.
Our elected officials and political appointees in the Department seem to agree this is a good thing to have jobs. to reduce the use of fossil fuels, to reduce the costs of fuel treatments, and to use natural resources in a sustainable way..any nay-sayers out there?
For those who follow the coal mine litigation (could coal be the “new timber”? ) wars, Holy Cross Energy is also the one who partnered with Aspen Ski Co to use methane that would otherwise be vented from coal mines (Elk Creek). Here’s a link with more information. Meanwhile, since at least 2007, methane has been vented while some people worked on litigation and some potential legislative fixes. You gotta applaud people who “just do it.” Props to you Holy Cross and Aspen Skico. Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.
Holy Cross’s challenge, as the power purchaser, was to arrange transmission from the mine. “The electricity had to be wheeled over medium-voltage distribution lines to a TriState [Generation and Transmission Association] substation, then across Western and Xcel Energy transmission lines,” said Hildred. “We weren’t sure in what order we needed to talk to people. DMEA [Delta Montrose Energy Association], the owner of the line that supplies power to the mine, had never dealt with anything like this before.”
All of the parties proved cooperative, so Holy Cross was able to sort out the distribution without encountering too many barriers. The utility signed the power purchase agreement and DMEA built a substation with a short extension to the 44-kV line.
Of course, no project happens without funding, and the developer was fortunate in finding an “angel” with an interest in alternative energy. Randy Udall, a sustainable energy advocate and former executive director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, happened to be at Vessels’s first meeting with Holy Cross Energy. “Afterward, Randy asked me if we were seeking partners and gave me the number of the sustainability director for Aspen Skiing Company,” Vessels recalled.
The innovative project appealed to the ski resort owner with its long history of supporting environmental causes, and the company put up the bulk of the funding to build the Elk Creek facility. “Aspen Skiing Company and Holy Cross Energy deserve accolades for seeing beyond the end of their noses,” declared Vessels.
I wonder what other issues would benefit from the “just do it” approach as opposed to years of litigation or unsuccessful federal legislation attempts?
Forest to Faucet Partnership- Denver Water
Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one…
Here’s the link.
By Jim Lochhead
and Dan Jirón
Guest Commentary
National Forest lands serve as the primary source of water that sustains cities and farmlands up and down the Front Range. This summer’s tragic wildfire season, fueled by heat and drought, once again demonstrated that catastrophic wildfires can wreak havoc on our watersheds and have devastating impact on life and property.
Fires impact water supply and water quality by increasing flows of sediment, debris and ash into streams and rivers, requiring emergency measures at treatment plants and millions of dollars to repair damage to habitat, reservoirs and facilities. Today, Colorado Springs and communities in the Fort Collins area are facing the immediate and long-term impacts from the Waldo Canyon and High Park Fires on their water supplies.
More than 10 years ago, the Buffalo Creek and Hayman fires brought to the forefront the need to work more closely together to tackle the impact of wildfires on Denver’s most critical water supply. We learned that our water infrastructure is more than pipes and dams. For Denver Water, our infrastructure encompasses more than 2 million acres of forested land in eight counties. Our investment in these watersheds is a long-term commitment to keeping them healthy decades from now.
We can’t prevent fire from occurring, but healthy forests can reduce the threat of catastrophic fire, like we experienced this year. Denver Water and the U.S. Forest Service have for decades worked side-by-side to care for the watersheds that provide water to Colorado citizens and Denver Water’s customers. Two years ago we forged a partnership — called “From Forests to Faucets” — to work in high-priority watersheds to accelerate forest health treatments that promote healthier, more resilient forests, reduce wildfire risks, restore burned areas and lessen erosion into reservoirs.
Last week, Denver Water and the U.S. Forest Service signed the third annual commitment of funds in support of this partnership. Together, we are focused on treating and restoring 38,000 acres of National Forest System lands in five priority watersheds including the Upper South Platte, South Platte headwaters, Colorado River headwaters, St. Vrain and Blue River. Since the From Forests to Faucets partnership began in 2010, we are currently treating nearly 17,000 acres.
In the Indian Creek drainage near the Rampart recreation area on the Pike National Forest, crews have treated more than 600 acres by removing ground fuels and thinning trees and reducing the threat and impacts of wildfire in the area. Near Dillon Reservoir, which is part of the Blue River Watershed on the White River National Forest, we’ve treated 600 acres, and 1,400 acres will be treated in 2013. Treatments include removing bark beetle-affected trees around the reservoir, while leaving the cut trees on the ground to support the next generation of forest.
The critical work done in these priority watersheds means improved water quality for Denver Water customers and millions of downstream water users, and healthier ecosystems, which benefit forest visitors and wildlife. While our current agreement focuses on reaching specific goals by 2015, we recognize that we’ll be working together for decades to come.
We are extremely proud of the work accomplished to date to protect our National Forest lands. The outcome of pulling our resources together, prioritizing work within critical watersheds, and putting people to work on the ground to improve water quality and quantity makes a real difference for Denver Water customers, forest visitors, and the ecosystem. We feel strongly that this partnership is a replicable example for future opportunities to approach critical watershed and forest restoration with partners that can only gain from what each can bring to the table.
Jim Lochhead is CEO and manager of Denver Water. Dan Jirón is a regional forester with the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
I wonder why this water partnerships like this are a New Mexico/Colorado phenomenon and not a California/Montana phenomenon? Maybe I just don’t know about them elsewhere? Maybe the lack of a forest industry means that these things can happen without the timber wars ghosts? Ideas?
Update From the Fremont-Winema NF
(One of my pictures from the Biscuit Fire)
From Greg Walden’s Facebook posting:
I just got off the phone with Kent Connaughton, the Forest Service’s Regional Forester for Oregon. In September, I brought Kent to Lakeview to meet with landowners who suffered horrible losses of timber and livestock during the Barry Point fire. These landowners are very concerned with how the Forest Service fought the fire and are trying to figure out how to cope with the losses they’ve suffered
.Kent gave me a status update tonight, and here is what I learned:1) The Forest Service is conducting an independent review of its own operations during the Barry Point fire. It is still in the works, but Kent believes it raises a number of unanswered questions, and he has asked for a more formal review by the states of Oregon and California. He will share a copy of the report once it is completed next month, and I look forward to getting to the bottom of these unanswered questions.
2) Kent has sent a special team into the Fremont-Winema National Forest to ensure there is no disruption in timber supply due to the fires. The Forest Service has also announced it will make 30 million board feet of timber available for each of the next two years, double the current production.
3) Kent also gave me an update on the Forest Service’s work with affected ranchers and landowners on recovery and repair to fences and property damaged during the fire. The Forest Service is putting $100,000 into the repair of fences destroyed during firefighting, and an additional $350,000 for materials to repair fences destroyed by the fire. Additionally, the Farm Services Administration is making $196,000 available to landowners for use in repairs.
It is good news that this fire recovery work continues, but we need to see it through to the finish. I will continue to work with citizens recovering from these wildfire disasters and make sure that all levels of government are helping with recovery as quickly as possible.
“The Future of the National Forests – Who Will Answer an Uncertain Trumpet?” by Jack Ward Thomas
Here’s a link to the paper, well worth reading in its entirety from Jack Ward Thomas, wise elder, world-class scientist and former Chief of the Forest Service.
Here are some excerpts:
Courts ruled that the FS’s applications of “professional judgment” fell short of the required “hard look” in evaluating proposed management actions. As a result, NF administrators (and legal counselors) became increasingly risk averse and, too often, produced evermore voluminous assessments in an effort to demonstrate compliance with laws and regulations. Evidently, it was assumed that costs of court ordered “do overs” exceeded costs of “overkill” in the form of excessive documentation. For the most part, the strategy largely failed. Losers included citizens who felt inundated, confused, and turned-off by increasingly voluminous and “technically dense” documents. Costs in time and money increased. Post-mortem examination showed that such “over kill” was an ineffective defensive mechanism.
Does this remind anyone of say, Colt Summit, or the Little Belt hazard tree project? And I would add citizens who feel that they are excluded from legal processes that determine the outcomes on their public lands.
“Fierce in battle, many of the eco-warriors have been unable to come to grips with the consequences of victory and are now reduced to wandering about the old battlefields ‘bayoneting the wounded.’ Their counterparts from the resource extraction community, likewise, cannot come to terms with defeat and hold ‘ghost dances’ to bring back the good old days when they were the undisputed Kings of the West.”
Most hard core “environmentalists” demonstrated little concern with the social/economic consequences of their victories. Some, figuratively, continued to wander the old battlefields “bayoneting the wounded” via challenges to even minor forest management activities. Victories have consequences. To the victors belong the spoils – and some responsibility to ameliorate consequences of their victories – “you break it – you own it” (Thomas 2001a and 2001b). There was applicable wisdom in President Lincoln’s admonition to General Grant near the end of the Civil War – “Let ‘em up easy.”
On EAJA:
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (1980)
The EAJA allows citizens to sue federal agencies for non-compliance with law(s) and/or regulation(s). Winning plaintiffs are compensated for costs. Conversely, plaintiffs with low net worth (or have non-profit status) have no liability when they lose – no matter what havoc the suit may have inflected in terms of management delays and legal costs. An ongoing drumbeat of judicial decisions (i.e., “case law”) defines and redefines the “playing field” for political/legal games surrounding NF management.
What do you think of these ideas for the future?
Of “Gordian Knots” and “Certain Trumpets”
Today, the NFs are increasingly viewed by some as a liability – economic, political, social, and ecological – rather than an asset. NFs should be increasing in value as populations increase and forest and range lands in private ownership are increasingly fragmented and “no trespassing” signs blossom like flowers in the spring.
One of two approaches to that problem seems possible – perhaps likely. The first is to continue to “pick around the edges” with clarifying adjustments in applicable laws. That approach, if past is prologue, will entail long drawn out processes of adjusting myriad laws – and making new laws – piece meal. Such is likely to have predictable consequences – after all, we have been down that road before.
Or, it can be realized that picking, prodding, poking at, and adding to the Gordian knot could/should be replaced by a bold stroke that cleaves the knot. Past efforts to address management of public lands provide insights into reform – and why previous efforts failed. There are only two options – learn to love and appreciate the Gordian knot as having essentially brought active management to an end or to, once again, “break new ground.” The second will, sooner or later, become mandatory as we struggle with reducing public debt (which will, in the end, involve reducing federal expenditures while increasing revenues). A revised approach to NF management could contribute to solution – but only if the Gordian knot is severed, the mission clarified, and achievement of management objectives facilitated.
That task is too complex to be effectively addressed by Congress or the Administration with out some help. Preliminary efforts by a carefully selected group of knowledgeable individuals experienced in the management of natural resources arena, public land law, and administration of land management agencies, should be charged with developing potential solutions with associated benefits and costs. Those assigned should complete the task in a year or less given the information and experience already at hand.
Recommendations should focus on revisions of present laws (including repeal of those that are not current with extant situations, redundant, or are not in synch with other applicable laws) and new law(s) that clearly define the mission and the expectations for the FS. The best of the spectrum of “old laws” should be incorporated into new law(s) so as to clarify intent. Ideally, the result would be the “certain trumpet” to guide the management of the NFs and the FS.
Land use planning should be a meaningful – a guide to management action and funding – achieved within a year at much less costs. Before embarking on new efforts in planning it is critical to determine why such planning has failed so miserably and short comings rectified. Flexibility should be a component so as to deal sudden alteration in conditions – fires, markets, economics, and, insect and disease outbreaks.
New sources of revenues should be explored and instituted. As examples, grazing fees should be adjusted at regular intervals to reflect market conditions on similar private lands. User fees for recreational activities should be explored – say fees for access for hunting (Thomas 1984, Sedjo 2000b). Methods of dispute resolution, short of resort to the courts, should be developed. Perhaps those that challenge the agency in court should, when they lose, be held liable for damages – which can be significant in terms of legal costs and delays in executing scheduled operations (Peterson 2000).
The new instructions should prioritize the importance of factors bearing on the FS’s decisions – environmental questions, jobs, welfare of local communities, monetary returns to the treasury and counties, balance of trade, water flows, clearly defined tradeoffs, etc. Thomas (2009:198-199) put forth suggestions to overcome the shortcomings of previous commissions that addressed public land management. FS Chief Emeritus R. Max Peterson has made similar suggestions (2000).
1.) There will be a limited time for execution – say six months to one year. The report will be delivered to Congress and the President at the beginning of a new Congress so as to be sheltered from the every second-year fascination with elections.
2.) The key members will work full-time on the project.
3.) Commission members will be compensated at the rate of the highest level of the senior executive service.
4.) Support staff will be made available as requested by the Chairperson.
5.) The effort will begin with recognition that there are problems (the Gordian not) that demand adjustments in laws and regulations.
6.) Results will take the form of potential alternative courses of action packaged as legislation, or amendments to existing law(s), ready for introduction.
7.) Clarity of purpose, intent, and required process will be of paramount importance – i.e., there should be limited potential for court interpretation.
8. Efficiency of management (in both time and money) will be of paramount concern.
9.) An arbitrations process to handle disputes short of federal court will be determined.
10.) The right to appeal proposed agency actions should be preserved. However, processes will be instituted that prevent or discourage “game playing” to draw out decisions and impose costs that render pending management infeasible. Those who challenge and lose will be subject to economic penalties.
.
11.) It will be recognized that the existing panoply of laws, interpreted variously by the courts over the years, has created an effective, burdensome, cumbersome, and inefficient system of accountability that thwarts action by the FS and Congress. Such will be corrected.Posewitz (2008:11) opined:
“If we are to sustain the legacy that it has been our privilege to enjoy, it is essential that people of principle and idealism respond to the current iteration of the perpetual crisis in public land management. It is time to not only rise in defense on the National Forest System, but also in defense of the custodial agency planted in our culture by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. “
Mitch Friedman (2008), self-identified as a leader of a “green group” supported FS Chief Dale Bosworth’s proposals for “collaborative restoration” of NF lands with “forest health” and “collaboration” as guiding principles. What seemed a rational and promising approach failed to yield much success. Funding such activities and keeping involved constituencies engaged in attaining support, the key to success – proved intractable.
“Muddling through” is wasteful and should not be tolerated (Nienaber and McCool 1996). As former Congressman Pat Williams (2008:8) of Montana plaintively asked: “FS – where did you come from, with what mission, and where, oh where are you headed?” That cogent, well-informed, plaintive question demands answers.
Miller (2008:17-18) believed that a successful future for the NFs lies in:
“…the creation of a cooperative conservation strategy in which local governments and organizations, in combination with federal land managers, develop forest plans. Proponents of collaboration have been inspired by the NFMA and the ESA that require public participation and interagency coordination: they have also been energized by community-based managerial initiatives promoted at the 1997 Seventh American Forest Congress…”
“…Moreover, although any change in the agency’s land management mission will require internal support from the FS’s leadership and staff, the real locus of any such transformation lies in Congress and the executive branch…”
Sedjo (2000b) recognized that the FS
“…no longer controls NF policy. Instead, mandatory provisions of the law and regulations…mean that the regional and local landscapes, watersheds, and their resources are now the focus of attention…the FS …now lacks the institutional capacity and authority to fully develop and implement ecosystem conservation agenda and resource management programs…due to lack of ability …to interpret and respond effectively to the public’s priorities…”
Enough already, it is time, way past time, to answer those old, up to now intractable questions. The future of the NFs and the FS rides on the answers. Obviously, the FS cannot, acting alone, provide such clarity. And, clearly, it is time, far past time, for clarity. Carpe Diem!
Martin Nie in the previous post suggested that we need a “land law review.” Framed that way, it places the locus of control, at least to some extent, with the legal profession. What I like about Thomas’s idea is that the group is determined more broadly.
Preliminary efforts by a carefully selected group of knowledgeable individuals experienced in the management of natural resources arena, public land law, and administration of land management agencies, should be charged with developing potential solutions with associated benefits and costs. Those assigned should complete the task in a year or less given the information and experience already at hand.
And perhaps not biting off all public lands and focusing only on the Forest Service would make the problem more tractable. What do you think?
Following Up with the Fire Modelling Discussion
I received an answer from Brandon Collins, one of the authors of the paper we discussed here. At comment #14 here, I said that I would ask the author how they selected 5,000. It was a while back so thought I’d start a new post.
Here’s the answer from Brandon Collins, one of the authors of the paper.
I looked at your blog and the discussion around the issue of modeling fuel treatment tradeoffs is good. There are several valid points brought up. With regard to our choice to use 5000 randomly placed ignitions, the point of was to saturate the landscape with fire so that you essentially remove the influence of fire origin. By doing this you can get dominant fire spread patterns across the landscape, independent of assumptions about where fires may start. In our case we focused on how planned treatments (which now are being implemented) changed the occurrence of more problematic fire (flame lengths > 2m) across the landscape. By using the fire spread algorithm within RANDIG you can get at both on-site (within treated areas) and off-site (outside treatment areas) effects of fuel treatments. You cannot quantify the off-site effects of treatments if you don’t use a fire spread algorithm (e.g., stand-level modeling). This approach generates estimates of “conditional” burn probability, meaning the probability of a particular area (e.g., pixel) burning during a specified duration, given that a fire ignites in the analysis area. This is not an estimate of actual burn probability.
With regard to arguments that fuel treatment benefits (e.g., reduced fire behavior and effects) may not be realized when you take into account the actual probability of fire occurring in a particular area, we wrote this in a recent article published in Ecosphere 3(5):Article 38 (can be downloaded from http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/stephens-lab/Articles.htm )
“The fact that we do not explicitly incorporate the probability of such an event occurring emphasizes that our analysis is not an actual risk assessment, i.e., expected loss multiplied by the probability of occurrence (Finney 2005). Rather, our assessment is more similar to a hazard analysis. While recent studies have included probability estimates of wildfire occurrence, and in particular occurrence of more severe fire in their assessments of fuel treatment impacts on C stocks (Ager et al. 2010, Campbell et al. 2011), there are several factors associated with the estimation of wildfire occurrence that lead to considerable uncertainty in results. First, the use of actual wildfire occurrence over the last two to three decades to derive annual burn probabilities (Campbell et al. 2011) reflects neither the historical (pre-Euro-American) occurrence of fire in frequently burned forest types (Stephens et al. 2007, Van de Water and Safford 2011), nor the projected changes in fire occurrence due to climate change in the future (McKenzie et al. 2004, Westerling et al. 2011). Second, changes in fire sizes resulting from fuel treatment implementation, particularly when considering the increased fire suppression efficacy associated with fuel treatments (e.g., Moghaddas and Craggs 2007), are not evaluated. This could lead to considerable over-estimation of fire occurrence in “treated” landscapes relative to “untreated” landscapes. A third source of uncertainty in the calculation of burn probabilities is related to the potential feedbacks associated with severe fires. In many dry forest types in the western US shrubs dominate for several decades following high-severity fire (McGinnis et al. 2010), and for that period of shrub-dominance the likelihood of reburning at high severity relative to intact forests is increased (van Wagtendonk et al. 2011). This feedback would affect calculations of high severity burn probabilities over time, particularly for “untreated” landscapes where more high severity fire would be expected.”
Canada (BC) and US (Tongass) Forest Policy Comparisons: Nie and Hoberg
Check out these videos from Policy Issues in the Pacific Coastal Temperate Rainforest of North America On April 19, 2012. I thought it was extremely interesting to compare what happens in our system of court-governance compared to Canada’s and the way they work and results in neighboring and connected forests. Props to Bruce Botelho (City and Borough of Juneau) for organizing, moderating and posting such an interesting panel.
In Part 1, Nie and Hoberg compare the governance, processes and products of policy between countries.
In Part 2, Nie and Hoberg are part of a larger panel.
If you only have a small amount of time, about 16 minutes into Part 2 is a discussion of the role of litigation. About 47 minutes in is a discussion of Forest Service culture.
In response to a question, Martin suggests a land law review. I’ve got some links to the Natural Resource Law Center’s of the University of Colorado Law School’s progam, powerpoints and videos of its conference on that topic in 2010. but some appear to be broken so I’ll post those once I contact folks there and get them fixed.
They also touch upon jobs, local communities, and other topics.
One thing of interest to me (there were many) was when Hoberg said that he didn’t feel that 30% protected was “enough” because of the importance of that area. It is interesting how rainforests can be all about old growth and protection, while it is harder to make that same case in areas of frequent fires. Maybe we need two separate ways to think about conservation..clearly delineated so that rainy ideas are not projected onto non-rainy areas and vice versa. Also discussion on collaboration and comparing Alaska and other collaborative efforts, and Martin Nie gives his opinion on the new planning rule.
We hobbyist policy wonks usually don’t have funding to get out and about, and the video plus any discussion here seems like a great way to expand the mind and the dialogue with new ideas. Here is a link to the whole session program. Some of those look interesting as well, would appreciate any comments from folks who have viewed the other sessions.
I’d be interested to hear from you all anything that strikes you about these discussions, and if the contrast between US and Canadian systems provides any thoughts for you about improving our processes in the US.
Owls and Fish and Science, Oh, My!
Here’s an article on the new critical habitat plan to be posted next week.
GRANTS PASS, Ore. –
The last building block of the Obama administration’s strategy unveiled Wednesday to keep the northern spotted owl from extinction nearly doubles the amount of Northwest national forest land dedicated to protecting the bird by the Bush administration four years ago.
Still, conservation groups that went to court to force the overhaul said key gaps remain, such as an exemption for private forest lands and most state forests.
Following a directive last February from the White House, officials revised the latest plan to make room for thinning and logging inside critical habitat to reduce the danger of wildfire and improve the health of forests.
Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity said it appeared the critical habitat plan and the previously adopted owl recovery strategy were back in line with the Northwest Forest Plan adopted in 1994 to protect owls and salmon.
“In restoring extensive protections on federal lands, today’s decision … marks the end of a dark chapter in the Endangered Species Act’s implementation when politics were allowed to blot out science,” he said. “The owl has continued to decline since its protection under the Endangered Species Act. Part of the reason for that is the loss of habitat on private and state lands.”
Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist for the GEOS Institute and a former member of the spotted owl recovery team, objected to plans to log and thin forests inside the critical habitat area, saying no studies have been done on how that may harm owls, which favor old growth. He added that one study shows it reduces the amount of prey available.
The federal government has been trying to balance logging and fish and wildlife habitat since the late 1980s.
The designation of the spotted owl as a threatened species in 1990 triggered a 90 percent cutback in logging on national forests in the northwest, and similar reductions spread around the nation.
Meanwhile here in Colorado, we have finally figured out which fish is which (see paper here and this piece by Bob Berwyn) and there is a settlement agreement with CBD that stops motorcycles only from the trails in the area.
As in this article, inquiring minds might wonder if all those activities are on the same trails (which I don’t know) is there a scientific reason that motorcycles were singled out? Part of this question could be that there is another layer of complexity not revealed in these news stories.
And despite the fact that this occurred in a settlement agreement behind closed doors, couldn’t either the feds or CBD (same organization as noted above) show how they used “the best available science” to come up with this agreement?
And if they can’t or won’t, doesn’t it make you curious about how policy is really made, the involvement of the public and how public the process is? Sure the scope and impact of this tiny drainage is nowhere near the spotted owl, but one could argue that at least the level of documentation (with citations) in a decision notice for a CE or so and some sort of public process should take place.
I’m hoping the explanation of best science is in a legal document somewhere (the formal settlement agreement?) but just not easy for folks to access. It seems to me that if we are going to acknowledge that court is where important federal lands policies get made, then the public should have the same right of access to those documents (for example, posted on the forest website) as they would to CEs, EAs and EISs.
Those who know more about the spotted owl story, please comment.