Dueling Colt Summit Opeds in Helena Paper

Today’s Helena Independent Record included dueling guest columns concerning the Colt Summit timber sale lawsuit, which is the first lawsuit of a timber sale on the Lolo National Forest in over five years.   One oped comes from Michael Garrity, a 5th generation Montanan, who’s the director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  The other oped is co-written by Keith Olson, director of the Montana Logging Association and Tom France, regional director of the National Wildlife Federation.  The most recent Colt Summit posts from this blog are found here and here.  Click here for the entire Colt Summit archive.

Reflecting on Science and the Internet

As reported by the New York Times, climate scientist Michael Mann bemoans the “rise of the Internet as a vehicle for the spread of scientific misinformation.”  In the spirit of Sharon’s “period of reflection” regarding this blog, I offer the following article about his book, not to inflame, but as an opportunity to commend Sharon for her attempts to provide a forum for posters to present scientific facts along with  a wide array of sometimes not so scientific opinions while attempting to keep a clear distinction between the two. Sometimes the debate fostered by NCFP seems poised to devolve into a” shouting match” but usually folks here can agree to disagree. Occasionally I see comments that skirt the margins of Sharon’s no-name-calling rule but I have yet to see a comment (other than spam) that I would refuse to approve.  Maybe they get zapped first by Sharon, or maybe the sort of people who participate here are just inclined to be civil (unlike, apparently, some talk show hosts.)  It certainly takes a special breed to while away one’s spare time debating the finer points of planning the future of our national forests!

A Dispatch From the Barricades

By JUSTIN GILLIS
Green: Science

As I noted in a recent article, the debate over climate science has come to resemble other angry battles in the nation’s culture wars. Much as one might dislike the idea of the earth’s future being decided in a shouting match, that seems to be the reality of the situation we are in.

Columbia University Press

That’s how Michael E. Mann puts it in a new book called “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.” Dr. Mann, a scientist at Pennsylvania State University, gives readers an inside look at a string of battles going back to 1999 in which he has played a central role. Many of these center on the famous “hockey stick,” a reconstruction by Dr. Mann and colleagues of the past thousand years of temperatures on the planet, relying on indicators like tree rings.

The graph of reconstructed temperatures is called a hockey stick because the right-hand side shows temperatures veering sharply upward in the last century. The paper and its graph, along with subsequent studies by Dr. Mann and several other scientists, suggest that this recent warming is anomalous, at least over the past millennium. Through no choice of Dr. Mann’s, the graph became a symbol of modern climate science when it was featured prominently in a 2001 report by a United Nations panel.

His book, published by Columbia University Press, is essentially about the drama that ensued after the paper was set upon by climate-change contrarians determined to undermine Dr. Mann’s conclusions. The tale features hearings in Congress, fevered denunciations of climate science as a “hoax,” stolen or leaked e-mails and one investigation after another after another. It also features mainstream scientists and leading scientific journals roused to defend Dr. Mann and the scientific method.

The book is secondarily about something else: the rise of the Internet as a vehicle for the spread of scientific misinformation. As it happens, the years when Dr. Mann was fighting these battles were also the years that public discourse of all kinds moved off the traditional news pages and into cyberspace. That offers enormous possibilities for the advancement of human knowledge, of course, but no informed reader will come away from Dr. Mann’s book feeling very happy about the way it has played out so far.

Michael E. MannAssociated PressMichael E. Mann

Important as the topic may be, I suspect this book will be more useful for insiders already familiar with the players and key events and less so for general readers. Anyone wanting a straightforward, elegantly written overview of the science might prefer Kerry Emanuel’s “What We Know About Climate Change,” which has the merit of being both complete and short. A reader seeking to understand climate politics in Washington might be better advised to pick up Eric Pooley’s “The Climate War.” (Dr. Mann, it turns out, was not the first to use martial language.)

Dr. Mann is focused instead on telling the tale of the hockey stick as he lived it. That is fair enough, but some of the discussion gets pretty arcane, as when he spends many pages on the details of the statistical arguments between him and his critics. It was probably necessary that he do so, but it will be tough going for a reader without much statistical background. Dr. Mann said he hoped that general readers would tackle the book and simply skip the parts they find too technical.

The Mann case exemplifies what to me is one of the central mysteries of climate contrarianism. Dr. Mann’s findings are but a small element in a vast body of scientific research suggesting that human society is running a serious risk with the planet. But many of the contrarians have been obsessed with the hockey stick for a decade, gnawing it over and over as a dog would a bone. They seem to think if they can disprove one small element of climate science, the whole edifice will collapse.

Unfortunately for our future, the findings of modern climate science are a great deal more robust than that. They do not depend on the validity of the hockey stick, as Dr. Mann himself makes clear. Even if they did, climate science would appear to be in pretty good shape: subsequent papers by other researchers with no stake in the original have confirmed his results. Investigations of Dr. Mann and other scientists have led pretty much nowhere, with the latest of them, by an attorney general in Virginia who is a climate contrarian, effectively shut down by that state’s Supreme Court last week.

Still, the climate wars go on, and perhaps they will for as long as the fossil-fuel industry sees political delay as being in its interests.

“The decades of delay in reducing carbon emissions have already incurred a very real cost to humanity and our environment,” Dr. Mann writes. “Each year that emissions reductions are delayed, it becomes increasingly difficult to stabilize CO2 concentrations below safe levels.”

A Good Thing: Forest Service Volunteer of the Year: Joel Starr

Joel Starr hand sharpens the saws he uses for trail work once a year. Starr commented that the old crosscut saws are harder to find and that hand sharpening these saws is becoming a lost art. (Andy Cripe | Corvallis Gazette-Time

As part of the NCFP blog reflection period (please see sidebar), which will continue until Easter, I determined more consciously to attempt to include positive articles about things we can all agree on. With Larry’s inspiring photos, we should be able to, perhaps, provide a better balance of positive and negative energies on the blog. I started a category called “Good Things” for projects and ideas we can all agree are beneficial.

Here’s a Madeleine L’Engle quote:

How do we learn to bless, rather than damn, those with whom we disagree, those whom we fear, those who are different? … To look for hell, not heaven, is a kind of blasphemy, for we are called to live in hope.

Source: A Stone for a Pillow

Forest Service volunteer of the year hopes more will join his cause

By GAIL COLE, Corvallis Gazette-Times | Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:00 am | (2) Comments

Joel Starr’s idea of a good time is sawing apart felled logs and brush blocking a trail in the forest.

“I like to feel like I’ve accomplished something,” Starr said.

Starr’s accomplished quite a lot when it comes to keeping recreation areas maintained for the public.

As trail boss for the Oregon Equestrian Trails’ mid-valley chapter, Starr has helped the group organize from 10 to 12 trail cleanups a year, both locally and throughout the Pacific Northwest. He’s worked on Marys Peak, Bald Hill and the McDonald Forest as well as the Willamette, Deschutes, Siuslaw and Mount Hood national forests.

The 100-member chapter typically logs 2,400 volunteer hours each year clearing trails.

In recognition of his efforts, the U.S. Forest Service has named Starr its national individual volunteer of the year – as well as its individual volunteer of the year on Region 6, which covers Oregon and Washington.

Jennifer Velez, a spokesperson with the Willamette National Forest, said that Starr recently was honored for his Region 6 contributions at Willamette’s Sweet Home Ranger Station. Plans still are in the works for his national recognition award ceremony.

Starr began clearing trails in 1995, but these days, he’s also teaching the skill to others. He is one of only five people in the Pacific Northwest who are certified to train prospective volunteers in the use of both a crosscut saw and a chain saw to clear trails.

And because no motorized vehicles or chain saws are allowed in many parts of Forest Service land, Starr has also learned how to sharpen crosscut saws – a three-hour chore he does once a year. He’s even built a few cross-cut saws himself, but Starr said his own creations don’t compare to the cross-cut saws used by early-20th century loggers.

“They haven’t made decent crosscut saws (since) 1950,” Starr said.

A former process engineer, Starr’s talent for organization is evident in the Oregon Equestrian Trails chapter’s supply trailer, which is parked on his Philomath property. It’s well-stocked with shovels, hard hats and other equipment needed to clear trails. A work party can equip itself at his trailer and be ready to go in 30 minutes or less.

“We never have to say, ‘Where’s the shovels?'” Starr said.

During work parties, Starr likes to get volunteers of many talents involved in his trail-clearing excursions. In addition to those who can cut up felled logs, volunteers are needed who know fire prevention and who are CPR- and first aid-certified.

“We have the attitude that everyone has something to offer,” he said.

Also a member of the Pacific Crest Trail Association and Back Country Horseman of Oregon, Starr has worked with several other groups on equestrian trail work parties who’ve also volunteered to clear forestland trails, such as AmeriCorps’ Northwest Youth Corps and the Sierra Club.

Starr, who is 65, is hoping to get enough people motivated and involved so that he can pass along his mission of keeping public recreation areas accessible to a new generation of volunteers.

“If they want this when they’re older, they’ll need to get proactive,” Starr said.

Volunteers are filling a vital role in maintaining recreation areas – a task no longer adequately funded, Starr said.

The Forest Service administers 193 million acres of forestland and grassland with an overall fiscal year 2012 budget of $5.9 billion – or, around $30.57 per acre. That total is down from $6.13 billion in 2011.

Within those 193 million acres are miles of recreation trails. For example, the Willamette National Forest’s south Santiam travel corridor, found along Highway 20, includes more than 30 day-use hiking and horse trails.

“For people to enjoy the legacy that we have, volunteers have got to maintain it,” Starr said.

Read more: http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/forest-service-volunteer-of-the-year-hopes-more-will-join/article_c1bee06e-5c19-11e1-998a-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1oBcaFIrs

Colt Summit Update: FS Confirms Restoration Work Under Contract

The Colt Summit project area is located in the upper-center portion by the "83" and bend in the road. The surrounding area (including the portions of the Lolo National Forest, State DNRC lands and private lands) have been heavily logged and roaded, significantly compromising critical habitat for lynx, grizzly bears, bull trout and other critters.

Much ado is being made about the Colt Summit logging and restoration project on the Lolo National Forest.  In fact, last week The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Yaak Valley Forest Council joined with the Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood Products Association and others to actually file a “friend of the court” brief in support of this logging project.

Asking around, this appears to be the first time that conservation groups like The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association and National Wildlife Federation have filed a brief to support a logging project.  Reading the rhetoric-filed, dooms-day press releases from these folks, you can’t help but get the impression that the Lolo National Forest must be under siege from timber sale lawsuits.

However, the facts tell a much different story.

Lolo National Forest officials confirm that the Lolo National Forest hasn’t faced a new timber sale lawsuit in over 5 years. In fact, between FY 2005 and FY 2010, the Lolo National Forest had at least 99 active timber sales.

Another impression one gets from reading press releases and statements from these groups is that the Colt Summit lawsuit has halted the positive road decommissioning and culvert upgrade work. In fact, the Montana Wilderness Association even has gone so far as to tell their members and supporters via Facebook that what’s “at stake” with the Colt Summit project is the road decommissioning/culvert work.

[Update: An hour after this article was posted, Montana Wilderness Association staffers removed these (here, here) substantive comments from their Facebook posts about the Colt Summit timber sale. Such tactics have been a very common practice by these groups as they attempt to stifle debate and prevent the open exchange of substantive information.]

Perhaps the people at Montana Wilderness Association should have more carefully read the plaintiffs summary judgment brief in this case:

“CONCLUSION
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant their motion for summary judgment, declare the Forest Service violated the law, and enjoin the Forest Service from approving and/or authorizing work on the Colt Summit project (excluding the road decommissioning and culvert removal work) pending full compliance with the law.”

Perhaps the staffers at Montana Wilderness Association should have remembered that last September, the Lolo National Forest issued this press release, very clearly (and somewhat ironically) titled “Colt Summit Restoration Contracts Awarded.”

In fact, below I will re-print an update about the status of the Colt Summit road decommissioning and culvert upgrade work I obtained over the past few days from the Boyd Hartwig, the Lolo National Forest’s very own Public Affairs Officer. Boyd’s generally been pretty good about responding to pubic information requests and as anyone can clearly see, the Lolo National Forest confirms that the following restoration work has been under contract since last September, is moving forward and is not impacted by the lawsuit.

1.  Colt Creek Road Decommissioning will decommission about 6 miles of Colt Creek Road #646.

2.  Colt Creek Road Rehabilitation will reconstruct an existing road to BMP standards and add a short section of newly- constructed road.  This route will replace access currently provided by road #646.  It’s important to note that the short piece of new construction is not being funded through CFLR.

3.  Colt Creek Culvert Replacement project will replace an undersized culvert with a new structure that provides for aquatic organism passage.

So there you have it folks. A pretty good, verified example of how much of the rhetoric and the “story-line” coming from these “collaborator” organizations and their timber industry “partners” isn’t really matching up too great with the reality of the situation on the ground, or in the courtroom. I believe there are a number of reasons for this, and perhaps in coming days I will get an opportunity to explore them further on this blog. However, suffice to say, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that what we’re seeing with the Colt Summit timber sale PR blitz from these “collaborators” is really just a continuation and/or extension of the campaign to support Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The players, political campaign type tactics/rhetoric and the intentional spreading of false information about these public lands issues is virtually identical.

From: Matthew Koehler
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:47 PM

Hello Boyd:

Can you please tell if this work [Lolo NF Press Release, September 30, 2011] is on-going or finished? Also, can you let me know details of all the work currently being done, or under contract, in the Colt Summit project area? Thank you. – Matthew

—————–

From: Boyd Hartwig

Matthew, all three projects are awarded.  No ground disturbing activity has occurred to date.  Ground-based activity could begin as early as July 1, 2012.  Instream work associated with the culvert replacement project must occur between July 15 and Sept. 1.  The decommissioning work cannot be done until alternative access is provided through the Colt Creek Road Rehab project.

Boyd Hartwig
Public Affairs Officer
Lolo National Forest

——————
From: Matthew Koehler
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 12:38

Hello Boyd:

Thanks so much for the info. Just so I have it correctly can you please confirm the following:

1) The name of these three projects awarded, or at least what work is included in this

2) That the lawsuit filed on Colt Summit hasn’t stopped these three projects from moving forward.

Thanks so much,
Matthew Koehler

———————-

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012
From: Hartwig, Boyd C -FS
To: Matthew Koehler <[email protected]>

Matthew, here are the listed projects:

1.       Colt Creek Road Decommissioning will decommission about 6 miles of Colt Creek Road #646.

2.       Colt Creek Road Rehabilitation will reconstruct an existing road to BMP standards and add a short section of newly- constructed road.  This route will replace access currently provided by road #646.  It’s important to note that the short piece of new construction is not being funded through CFLR.

3.       Colt Creek Culvert Replacement project will replace an undersized culvert with a new structure that provides for aquatic organism passage.

All three projects are awarded but no ground disturbing activity has occurred to date.  Instream work associated with the culvert replacement project must occur between July 15 and Sept. 1.  The decommissioning work cannot be done until alternative access is provided through the Colt Creek Road Rehab project.

Regarding start dates,  they are hoping to begin work this spring, that’s correct. They are aware of the lawsuit but as you know there is no injunction on the planned work.

Boyd Hartwig
Public Affairs Officer
Lolo National Forest

Abuse of enviro laws may doom them- Editorial from the Mountain Standard

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one from the Mountain Standard.

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

Environmental groups do – at least the handful that find themselves in court every time professionals in the U.S. Forest Service try to do their jobs and actually manage land.
This week two environmental groups – the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystem Council – filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service for its proposed Fleecer timber sale.

What a surprise.

It’s hard to think of any instances in recent years when the Forest Service has tried to do logging or habitat work on the public land it manages without these groups, as well as the WildWest Institute, having sued to stop it. They constantly cite the damage such projects could cause to the land and to the animals on or under consideration to go on the Endangered Species List in the northern Rockies. When they sue, they allege violations of several other environmental laws as well, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, but the ESA is almost always used because of the species on the list in the northern Rockies.

The leaders of these two groups have made careers out of suing the Forest Service and other federal agencies. Listening to their rhetoric, one might get the impression that government employees are bent on wiping out native species and butchering forests into moonscapes.
The Fleecer project is a prime example. Forest Service scientists carefully planned the project to deal with numerous dead and dying trees in the area and supply some logs to the timber industry. They looked at conifer encroachment into native grasslands and the decline of aspen groves. And they considered the health of the streams and ways to improve the movement of fish.
But Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, saw the Forest Service’s real, sinister motives. He proclaimed the project “one of the most corrupt” ever proposed in Montana and said the lawsuit was necessary “for the sake of the elk, grizzly bears, lynx and a myriad of other old growth dependent species.”
The trouble is, the project area has no old growth – it’s all been historically logged. There have never been grizzlies spotted there. And Forest Service personnel say their analysis found the lodge pole pine areas where the logging is proposed is not prime lynx habitat.
Even other environmental groups see the folly in the tired arguments that the extremists keep pushing.
This week the Wilderness Society and Montana Wilderness Association – hardly groups bent on destroying the earth – filed a brief in support of a logging project near Seeley Lake on the Lolo National Forest that the Alliance and three other groups challenged. They noted that the project was part of a collaborative effort involving the Forest Service, local community and themselves and the logging and habitat work is needed.
Undeterred, Garrity countered by saying those groups have no business calling themselves conservationists and environmentalists. He called for them to give back the money they have collected from members for promoting a project that will harm endangered species.

But the turning of several environmental groups on the serial litigants is a sign that people of all stripes are fed up with their tactics. And as efforts to work together to solve habitat problems grow, people are seeing that these extremists have never done a thing for conservation other than file lawsuits. As long as they are filing lawsuits, they are protecting their jobs.
The real loser, however, is the ESA itself. This is a good law, albeit one that isn’t perfect. It has helped bring back bald eagles, grizzly bears in the lower 48 states and several other species that likely wouldn’t have made it without the act. But when it gets used by extremists to shut down any and every habitat or logging project because endangered animals could wander through an area, it’s hard to defend.

A word to the wise environmentalists, keep it up. Sue the Forest Service over projects that cut a single stick. Bring those corrupt government workers to their knees as they try to improve habitat.
But don’t forget that laws can be changed. And as the frustration grows over the management of public lands, eventually the ESA and other important laws to protect the environment will be gutted — or outright repealed.

Try filing legitimate lawsuits without any environmental laws on the books.

Note from Sharon: I don’t think realistically that there would be the votes to change those laws based on people who can separate the rhetoric of the lawsuits from the reality (local mostly westerners). However, you might see some federal lands policy changes from Congress and perhaps the change from appeals to objections is a step in that direction.

Southwest Oregon Rainforest

During a wet April, I was doing stand exams in old plantations in southwest Oregon. No, those days of wearing “tin pants” and “corks” are not over with! On my one day off that wet week, I woke up early on Sunday morning and was out the door before any of my co-workers even got out of bed. I found plenty to shoot, exploring the area around the south fork of the Coquille River, east of Powers.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Larry-Harrell-Fotoware/145797075533465

Tree-Free Fuels Treatments

Here’s the story..there’s even a video of brush piles burning there somewhere. My point being that this seems like strong evidence that fuel treatments are not excuses for “industrial logging” as sometimes portrayed. At least not all of them.

Forest crews may begin burning brush and debris piles next week when weather permits north of Banning, Beaumont, and near Oak Glen, a spokesman for the San Bernardino National Forest announced Friday.

The pile burning locations are:

Cal Fire Oak Glen Conservation Camp
Cherry Canyon Truck trail between Oak Glen camp and Mile High Ranch
West of Pisgah Peak along the 1S07 Pisgah Peak Road
Above Pilgrim Pines near the old helispot
Banning Bench at the top of Bluff Street

“The Forest Service has been working closely with the community, the Oak Glen Fire Safe Council and local agencies developing and implementing the Oak Glen/Banning Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project,” John Miller of the Forest Service in San Bernardino said in a statement.

“Over the spring and summer months, crews have been thinning and stacking piles of dense brush as part of the fuels reduction project,” Miller said. “Pile burning is now one of the tools planned for use as part of the project work underway in the community.”

Firefighters are planning to burn about 200 brush piles in the national forest near the Oak Glen community this spring as weather and conditions permit, Miller said.

“Burning of these brush piles needs to occur in order to further reduce the threat of wildfire to mountain communities,” Miller said. “Firefighters will remain on scene of burning piles as long as the piles have the potential to be active. If conditions change to make burning unfavorable or dangerous, burning will cease.”

The Oak Glen-Banning Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project will reduce fire risk to communities and improve forest health on national forest lands surrounding the communities of Yucaipa, Oak Glen, Banning, Forest Falls, and Mountain Home Village, forest officials said.

Fuel reduction and pile burning help decrease potential for high intensity, stand-replacing wildfires and the threat to nearby communities.

The project also increases firefighter safety in the area, and helps improve forest health, Miller said.

Creation of a system of fuel breaks are underway on the approximately 511-acre project area.

“This project began with the community based Fireshed meeting in April 2005 and is a great example of a collaborative partnership CALFIRE, the Oak Glen Fire Safe Council, Urban Conservation Corps and AmeriCorps and the community,” District Ranger Gabe Garcia said. “I want to thank everyone that has supported the project, and their understanding of the necessity to burn the slash and debris piles.”

If citizens see smoke in the air in the general vicinity of Oak Glen and would like to find out what is happening, they are asked to call the San Bernardino National Forest at (909) 382-2851 or visit the forest’s “alerts” page on the web at: www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/sbnf/alerts-notices.

Oak Glen/Banning Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project documents are available on-line at: data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb.

A Tale of Three Projects – South Shore Fuel Reduction

The 10,000-plus South Shore fuels project could begin in 2012. Photo/LTN file

An interesting thing that happens on this blog is that we get “into the weeds” or snags (?) of projects in different parts of the country, so we can compare the different approaches and concerns. We also have readers with on-the-ground experience in many of these areas. Thanks to Derek for submitting these articles about the South Shore Fuel Reduction in California. It’s interesting for a number of reasons, the size, the cost ($40 million), the ICW (Index of Comparative WUI-ness), and the fact it used the objection process. The three projects we are currently discussing are Colt Summit (Montana), Goose (Oregon) and now this one. In the past, we’ve examined a host of others.

10,000-acre thinning project may start in 2012 on S. Shore

Posted By admin On October 11, 2011
By Kathryn Reed

With parts of the forest near developed areas being in prime condition for a wildland fire much like in June 2007 when the Angora Fire consumed more than 3,000 acres, the U.S. Forest Service is ready to do something about that land.

Once the long-awaited South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project gets under way – which could be next summer — 10,112 acres will be treated.
The 10,000-plus South Shore fuels project could begin in 2012. Photo/LTN file [1]

The 10,000-plus South Shore fuels project could begin in 2012. Photo/LTN file

Duncan Leao, U.S. Forest Service forester, calls the wildland urban interface (this is where the forest abuts development) on the South Shore one of the areas in the basin that most needs treatment.

“It’s important work to do. We don’t want another Angora Fire. The conditions we are looking at in many places on the South Shore are conditions we saw in Angora before the fire,” Leao told Lake Tahoe News.

It will take about four years to thin the trees, with another four years for follow-up treatments. In all, it is roughly estimated to cost $40 million. The U.S. Forest Service, mostly through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, has secured three-quarters of that figure.

Before a single branch is limbed or tree felled, comments on the project will be taken until Oct. 28 from anyone who submitted a comment when the environmental impact statement was first released. If anyone files an objection to the final EIS, it triggers a 30-day resolution period.

Ultimately it is up to the forest supervisor to sign off on the document, allowing the project to go forward.

Then comes the process to obtain the necessary permits. The one from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board is the biggie.

However, Lauri Kemper, No. 2 at the regional water board, said the draft of the permit has been on hold since February 2010. But it takes more than a signature to make it valid.

California Environmental Quality Act regs are what Lahontan is going by. Lahontan officials must certify the EIS addresses CEQA concerns.

The project will involve working in stream environmental zones – that’s a main sticking point for the water board. It doesn’t mean no permit; it means a thorough review and not just taking the Forest Service at its word that the EIS is complete and addresses those concerns.

“We’re all for fuels reduction,” Kemper said.

What could hold up the project is the Lahontan board may not grant a permit until its May meeting. The Forest Service cannot go out to bid until all the permits are in place. This could delay work in what is already a limited season for thinning because dirt in the basin, per TRPA rules, can only be disturbed between May 1-Oct. 15.

A combination of mechanical and hand treatments are likely to be used.

Whether hand thinning could begin without the Lahontan permit depends on what type of permit Lahontan decides to issue. There are three possible ways it can permit the project.

Trees 16-inches and less in diameter are likely to be felled by hand, while those up to 30 inches would be taken out by machines. Most likely the process will be similar to what is being done in the Angora area [2] in terms of the machines used. The forest pattern will be different because Angora is mostly about removing dead trees.

“A lot of hand work goes pretty quick. Then (people) would see piles. Those may last a couple years,” Leao explained. “With the mechanical you do not see as many piles because most of it is removed.”

Trails used by recreationists will either be off-limits at times or rerouted to ensure no one is hurt as the work is being done.

“It will be a combo of biomass and merchantable material — stuff that could go to a mill will depend if there is a mill nearby. The market is very difficult to predict,” Leao said. “If no sawmill is open, then contractors would have to determine what to do with that. It’s very helpful to have both biomass and saw log markets.”

The USFS decides which trees to thin first based on size – taking out the smallest at the get-go. Then the health of the tree and species are determining factors.

Jeffery and sugar pine, incense cedar and larger trees are ones Leao said the Forest Service wants to keep.

Diseased trees, including ones with mistletoe, will be on the chopping block.

“Ideally, you want a forest with multiple sizes and age classes. You can’t do that with thinning alone,” Leao said. “As we get the WUI stuff done, the forest still has an even age to it. Fire and planting trees, and other methods could be used to get it into a healthier condition. That is more long term.”

To view the South Shore final EIS, go online. [3]

The comments are interesting also as they suggest a charitable firewood program for the elderly.

So I looked up the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which will provide the funding

About SNPLMA

The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) became law in October 1998. It allows the Bureau of Land Management to sell public land within a specific boundary around Las Vegas, Nevada. The revenue derived from land sales is split between the State of Nevada General Education Fund (5%), the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%), and a special account available to the Secretary of the Interior for:

Parks, Trails, and Natural Areas
Capital Improvements
Conservation Initiatives
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MSHCP)
Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisitions
Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention
Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Act
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Projects

Other provisions in the SNPLMA direct certain land sale and acquisition procedures, direct the BLM to convey title of land in the McCarran Airport noise zone to Clark County, and provide for the sale of land for affordable housing.

Here are a couple of other links on this project:

Massive South Shore fuels reduction project approved

January, 13 2012
Staff Report
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. — The U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit has approved a more than 10,000 acre project to reduce wildfire risk to communities at Lake Tahoe’s South Shore and restore the health of the area’s forests, according to a Friday statement.

The South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project will thin trees and brush on national forest system land from Cascade Lake to the Nevada stateline. The project will take approximately eight years.

The project is designed to provide defensible space, reduce the risk of high intensity fire and create forests better able to resist drought, insects and disease, while restoring stream environment zones, meadows and aspen stands, according to the statement.

Thinning by crews with chain saws, removing trees using tracked and rubber-tired equipment and prescribed fire are included in the project.

The Forest Service plans to move forward with hand thinning as soon as conditions allow. Mechanical thinning will undergo permitting through the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board before starting.

“The fuel reduction efforts outlined in the South Shore project are critical to protecting our communities from wildfire,” said LTBMU Forest Supervisor Nancy Gibson in the statement. “We will continue to work closely with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and our goal is to begin implementing the project this summer.”

The Forest Service has coordinated with other public land management agencies and local fire protection districts to ensure the fuels reduction work will complement local Community Wildfire Protection Plans, according to the statement.

Detailed project information is available online at: www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ltbmu/SouthShoreFuelReduction.

and Extensive Fuels Reduction Project faces challenges.

The Wages of Compromise: When Environmentalists Collaborate

I found this piece on a pingback from our blog.The author and associates seem to have an enemy known as Big Timber, and I’m not sure that there is an extant energy source of which he would approve.
I think the expression “the wages of compromise” may be a reference to the “wages of sin” in Romans 6:23. Perhaps intended to imply that compromise is a “sin”? Oh, well. Note the reference to Matthew Koehler (walkin’ the talk, good on you, Matthew!) and the Colt Summit project (referred to as the “2,038-acre Climate Camo logging plan on the Lolo National Forest.”) I also think the tone of self-righteousness and the use of inflammatory and not-quite-correct statements is a bit off-putting, but that seems to go with the territory.

March 01, 2012
The Wages of Compromise
When Environmentalists Collaborate
by MICHAEL DONNELLY

Spring is in the air in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Crocus and daffodil add a splash of late winter color. Trees are budding. Days grow longer, the sun makes a cameo appearance…and, like swallows to Capistrano, the usual suspects cadre of eco-wonks/lawyers return to Eugene and the University of Oregon for the 30th Annual Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (E-LAW) March 1 – 4, 2012.

“Compromise is often necessary, but it ought not to originate with environmental leaders. Our role is to hold fast to what we believe is right, to fight for it, to find allies, and to adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or our friends to win, then let someone else propose the compromise, which we must then work hard to coax our way. We thus become a nucleus around which activists can build and function.” — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club. This year PIELC officially celebrates the 100thAnniversary of Brower’s birth.

E-LAW is part employment bazaar for newly-minted attorneys seeking jobs in the ever-expanding (much thanks to E-LAW) field of Environmental Law. It is also part gathering of actual non-paid, in the trenches eco-activists who are the ones who generate the resistance that leads to all those legal jobs. What matters to the job seekers and the already employed panelists who draw a paycheck derived from a cornucopia of foundation-funded groups and what motivates the volunteer or underpaid activists sometimes coincide and sometimes the activists are featured panelists; but, most of the time the disconnect is palpable. Invariably, PIELC becomes living proof of the Upton Sinclair dictum.

“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” —Upton Sinclair

Many environmental topics – local, national and international are featured among the many panels and plenary sessions. Excellent panels on Civil Liberties and Activism always are on the agenda, as are ones addressing threatened Species. Many prominent issues are left unaddressed. And, as Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle (now in Appalachia fighting the good fight against the abomination of Mountaintop Removal coal extraction) always notes, “The real work at any of these gatherings is done in the hallways and bars.”

So, here’s a summary of the local and national ones that I see are the hot points issues right now; the ones getting the mountain lion’s share of the funding and attention:

Hair-of-the-Dog Logging

“Forests precede civilization; deserts follow. In between scientists and priests and environmentalists give their blessings to the destruction of the trees and aid in convincing the public to pay no attention to the ever shittier forests in exchange for a cut of the loot.”— Jeff Gibbs

The buzz this year among the professionals is “Collaboration” with the Agencies and industries in the business of cutting trees for profit under the rubric of “forest health.” This was started back in early Clintontime with the Big Foundations’ Community-Based Solutions’ Quincy Library Group in the Sierra. This 50-foundation effort has metastasized and is now the preferred model for the eco-wonks and their giant non-profits funders. From the point of view of forest activists without any financial horse in the race, the evidence is in: “Collaboration” is decimating forests and harming the planet.

“Collaboration” always results in agreements that allow for more logging with a bone or two of promised protections. It green-lights previously untouched lands to be logged and lands already recovering from one to several rounds of logging, air pollution or insect attacks and saturated with logging roads and tracks to be decimated once more.

Much of it is in the name of fire reduction and forest health. But few will admit the “unhealthy” forests of today are sick because humans have already seriously diminished them by past logging. Recent data unveiled by courageous, non-industry-funded scientists show that these elaborate ecosystems take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to heal from even one round of extraction; time we certainly are not giving them.

The land and trees can only take so much of this. Even worse, standing forests may well be our last best chance for co2 sequestration and biodiversity.

The most common “Collaboration” has to do with professional enviros self-selecting themselves to represent environmental interests in Collaborative Groups (usually called “Watershed Councils” or “Stewardship Councils”) around logging of our Public Lands. These “representatives” are approved by the relevant Agency and join with Big Timber and their usual pack of supportive public officials (all “stake-holders” in bureaucratic jargon) to hammer out agreements that always allow for more logging while that never-realized bone or two of promised protections is dangled in front of the public. As evidenced by recent appropriations for “fire-reduction logging,” the timber part of the deal always gets done. Yet, not a single acre ever gets set aside inviolate.

For example, the Colville National Forest in NE Washington state has seen such collaboration go on for years now. We were told it would lead to 1/3 of the forest gaining full Wilderness status; a third to be a timber extraction sacrifice zone and a third would see a “one-time” “restoration” logging (chainsaw surgery) effort – though “fire-reduction” logging quickly became the rationale. As expected, just a month ago, the chainsaw part of it got its first heaping helping of tax dollar funding and the all clear to fire up the saws. Also as expected, not a single acre was protected.

Every state with public forests has such (many) a collaborative group going. And, the result has been the same across the board. As noted, fear-mongering around fire is the rubric. Industry will disingenuously argue that the Agencies forced their past logging to leave the forests “over-stocked” with small fire-prone trees and therefore it’s contingent upon Big Timber themselves to be the “healers” wielding the saws. ALL logging is now called “Restoration Thinning,” including heavy commercial thinning schemes that remove 85% of 135 to 180-year-old naturally-regenerating stands.

This is fully embraced by the establishment “greens.” As stated by Andy Kerr, “senior counselor” of the ossified statewide eco-group Oregon Wild, “Today, I want the remaining sawmills in Elgin, Gilchrist, John Day, Klamath Falls, Lakeview, Pendleton and Pilot Rock to remain operating — because society needs their help to restore and protect those very same resources.”

In this vein, a panel headed up by Doug Bevington, author of “Rebirth of Environmentalism” has been formed to discuss “Climate Camouflage for Logging.” The blurb for the panel states “New projects are increasingly under the pretext of addressing climate change – including carbon credits for clearcutting, forest biomass removal for energy production, and landscape-wide thinning projects claiming to prevent mega-fires.”

What the blurb does not tell you is that one panelist is from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a group that itself has planned the largest such Climate Camo logging plan ever, the Southwest’s Four Forests Initiative. CBD, a top potential employer for new eco-attorneys, is so proud of this effort that you can find – exactly nothing – about it in their annual reports. I once questioned CBD’s Executive Director about it and got nothing but hostile projections in return.

In his book, Bevington cites CBD as a model for “grassroots” advocacy. In reality, it is a closely-held legal non-profit corporation; quite successful, the best, in securing Endangered Species Listings – though settling for Listings alone without inviolate Critical Habitat set aside leaves the job incomplete. Despite their absurd foray into Climate Camo timber sale planning, CBD employs a battalion of eco-attorneys doing very worthy work. CBD representatives can be found on a myriad of E-LAW panels. Included is an important panel on Population and Consumption levels, a topic often self-censored at such conferences.

How the Big Greens define “Success”

Just this week, The Wilderness Society (TWS) and the Montana Wilderness Association filed a brief in favor of a 2,038-acre Climate Camo logging plan on the Lolo National Forest. The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the WildWest Institute and two other real grassroots conservation groups had filed a lawsuit against the Colt Summit Timber Sale alleging that the logging would do grave harm to lynx, grizzly bears and bull trout.

TWS and the Forest Service combined hold 43% of the votes in this Southwestern Crown of the Continent (SWCC) “collaborative” group. The Lolo Forest Supervisor has served as co-chair of the group. The other co-chair? A TWS rep. With “greens” oiling the chainsaws like this, Big Timber doesn’t even need to work up a sweat. According to the Associated Press, “TWS’ Megan Brizell said in regards to the sale that whenever possible, taking a collaborative approach to forest management is more successful.”

Matt Koehler of the Wildwest Institute will be on a panel opposing this Montana-style Collaboration. He won’t be there in person. It will be the first E-LAW panel that is conducted using Skype; foregoing the usual big carbon footprint of most E-LAW panels, not to mention saving a scarce few hundred dollars the Institute will wisely use elsewhere.

The Science is In

Add to the mix a recent study by one of those courageous, immediately under attack from industry and its sycophants, scientists – Dr. William Baker, a professor in the Program in Ecology at the University of Wyoming

This study of such “fire-prone” forests debunks every single rationale the collaborators always cite about the need to thin out the forests…reducing to self-serving myth Andy Kerr’s main justification that “we must address the fact that many of our dry forests are unnaturally dense due to decades of poor logging practices and fire suppression. To restore these lands, we need an expanded program of ecological restoration thinning that can make way for the return of more natural conditions…”

This fable was never embraced by and indeed has been fiercely opposed by the real, under-funded grassroots, like those at The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, WildWest, the Native Forest Council, etc. who have been under attack from the professional “greens” over it since “restoration logging” first appeared on the scene and locals first cried foul. The reality is: hair-of-the-dog logging works about as well for the impacts of past over-logging as the drinking version does for over-imbibing.

Bridge Fuel

Another recent big story out of Green Central (and unaddressed this E-LAW) is that the 120-year-old Sierra Club – after a 2009 alliance (read: greenwash campaign) with Clorox yielded a $470,000 boost to the Club’s coffers – went big time. The Club has now been revealed to have secretly taken and spent $26 million from the Natural Gas industry (Chesapeake Energy) to promote gas as the “Bridge Fuel” to a supposedly fossil fuel-free future. Looking at being exposed, the Club then gave back an additional $30 million, instead of redeeming themselves by passing in to the many local grassroots groups who’ve been fighting off the ever–expanding Natural Gas Fracking industry on their own dime.

As Fracking (the process of injecting a stew of toxic chemicals under pressure deep into the ground designed to free up trapped gasses) exploded across the land with serious deleterious impacts to aquifers – enraging local activists – the Club went into damage control mode; first repeatedly responding evasively to any questions about it and then only admitting their collusion with Big Gas and issuing a very weak apology after a whistle-blower leaked the info to TIME.

Other Big Greens who still ally with the Gas Industry, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, haven’t backed off a bit. EDF’s Fred Krupp goes so far as to promote “How to Frack Responsibly.”

The Club then took $50 million from the personal vault of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; ostensibly for their Beyond Coal Campaign, meaning that now the Club has shifted gears from pimping gas to pimping “clean, efficient solar, wind and geothermal” – which, of course, are neither clean nor efficient (one E-LAW panel addresses the many pitfalls of Big Wind). Some of those millions should immediately go to the local Appalachian grassroots anti-mountain-top-removal coal extraction (MTR) groups who have nationalized the issue on great heart and shoestring budgets.

As ever, the real “Bridge Fuel” for Big Greens is Grant Funding, which comes primarily from…Big Oil Foundations – Pew (Sunoco), Rockefeller Brothers, et al…and, as shown by the Club, directly from the offending parent industries and billionaires themselves.

Biomassacre

Another E-LAW topic this year is the removal of trees from the forests which are then burned for energy production. It is being promoted as a way to utilize the output from those “ecological restoration thinning” projects. Oregon Wild has also signed on to a huge Climate Camo logging plan that would log off the small trees from over 9 million acres of Eastern Oregon’s dry public forests , with the resultant “biomass” being burned; fueling “baseload” steam generators without which the grid cannot operate. In Oregon just this past spring, there was so much hydroelectric production from snowmelt that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) refused to take any more power into the grid from Big Wind’s industrial installations that blight 100s of miles of Columbia River ridgelines. However, the grid operators still had to run the Boardman Coal Plant at 40% capacity in order to provide the balancing baseload – even hydro is too fluctuating.

As the Boardman – Oregon’s largest single polluter – plant’s operators have agreed to get off coal by 2020, any guesses where all that biomass will be burned? And burning wood is 1.5x more polluting than burning coal and it’s only ¼ as efficient! Wood is the dirtiest fuel of all.

E-LAW addresses (barely) the biomassacre scourge. The main Biomass panel is populated by people who have spent a couple years in-fighting to see who can be the top Biomass dog – scheming to ally with Big Greens and mine foundation grants – actual Biomass resistance is an after-thought. These people have gone so far as to censor people (myself included) from a listserve ostensibly set up to garner widespread grassroots support for fighting biomass. All one has to do is question the efficacy of the endeavor or the internal dynamics of the effort – especially the involvement of Big Green pro-biomass apologists – to bring on the red e-pencil.

“Renewable” Energy = Biomass and Nukes.

What no one will say is that if you keep talking the Big Green/Democrat “clean, renewable energy,” ultimately you are talking about biomass and nukes. The facts are that solar, wind, geothermal…cannot run the grid and never will (that sticky baseload thing again) and Al Gore’s “solution” – the so-called “smart grid” would cost about $100 trillion. The land base needed for the amount of solar installations w/output equal to the current US grid demand is the size of Arizona and Southern California – combined! As none of them is calling for decentralization (rooftop solar, etc.) and the end of the grid, the steam generators will have to be run by wood or nukes, if no longer by fossil fuels. Your “electric” car is really a coal-powered (or dead-salmon-powered here in the NW) vehicle and, the way things are going, may one day be an atom or tree-powered one.

It won’t be long before some “green” trots out “How to do Biomass Responsibly.” In fact, already something called The Apollo Alliance is the vehicle the biomass industry and the usual funders have trotted out to greenwash Biomass. Other anti-fossil fuel greens also blindly embrace biomass.

So far the grassroots opposition has been mixed. As noted, almost immediately that nationwide listserv set up to connect anti-Biomass advocates foundered as proven-effective grassroots activists were ousted for questioning the inclusion of pro-biomass Big Greens. But, local activists have won against some ghastly Biomass schemes when they have held the line; staring down the Apollo Alliance’s hired guns. It’s likely to get way worse, as “green” groups continue to tout Biomass and Nukes as “clean and renewable” while an effective nationwide anti-Biomass coalition remains unattainable.

Pipeline to the White House

For a couple decades now, every time one of these gatherings was held, shrill cries rang out about “Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” (ANWR) in Alaska. The shadow play would act out nationally every year (and often more frequently). Both sides would use it to rally their base and raise funds; yet, nothing would ever changed on the ground – still hasn’t. In 1996, Bill Clinton opened up to drilling the former Naval Petroleum Reserve in Alaska – right next door to ANWR – twice as big and just as ecologically sensitive – with nary a peep from Big Green at the same time they were decrying yet another going nowhere attempt on ANWR.

This year, ANWR is nowhere to be found at E-LAW. It’s been fully replaced by the Keystone Pipeline election-year feint as fund-raiser/potential eco-job du jour.

We’ve been told repeatedly that if the Keystone Pipeline from Alberta’s Tar Sands to Texas is built it will be “game over” for Climate Change. Yet, no one on the foundation dole will tell you that the Tar Sands crud is already here, coming in thru multiple existing pipelines and being refined at over 30 refineries; complete with recent devastating “spills” in Kalamazoo and in the Yellowstone River. Most of the refined Tar Sands bitumen goes into aviation fuel. One of the great ironies of the decade was the anti-Keystone rally at the White House earlier this year. Hundreds of people flew into DC to get arrested; apply a painless greenwash coat to the Obama reelection campaign and then fly out again – on jets fueled with Tar Sands product!

The Tar Sands can only be stopped at the source. Yet, that issue is nowhere to be found. That’s left to Canadian First Nations defending their ever-more devastated lands to fight against by themselves and their, as usual, underfunded allies.

Disconnect

Obviously, one of the issues with huge Climate Change impact that is never addressed by this nor any other eco-confab is the huge Eco-cost of Jet Flying in this age of Skype. Assembling a large face-to-face gathering such as this with people from all over the country and planet, cannot be done (at least not the way it is done) without there being huge transportation-related environmental costs. And, E-LAW is but one of dozens of such annual eco-gatherings. Boards and staffs of groups like the Sierra Club, TWS, CBD, et al., jet to one fabulous destination after another for multi-meetings per year, when they aren’t flying to and from DC. Paid enviros likely rack up more frequent flyer miles than any profession other than politicians.

Jet flying contributes some 3.5% of all greenhouse gasses to the air. That’s a low-ball estimate and its Global Warming impact has to be multiplied by a factor of at least 155% as the damage is greater when the carbon is released high in the atmosphere. It may “only” be 3.5%, but it is the fastest growing contributor to Climate Change. And, it is THE single top personal, unnecessary contribution to Climate Change; killing the planet more in a few hours than all one could save in a year of recycling, bicycling, driving a Pius, E-LAW refusing to serve imported java in throw-away cups, etc. combined! One trip across the country and back spews as much carbon per person as driving an SUV for two years. Every one of the E-LAW panelists, as do most Americans, consumes more carbon in a year than the average human will in her lifetime. Talk about your 1%!

I’ll predict right now that in ten years E-LAW will feature panels on Abolition of Jet Flying to save the planet. The sad fact is; not even self-declared Greens will give up Darth Cheney’s “Non-negotiable American Way of Life.” As a fellow activist recently noted; “That those who claim to care about fossil fuel abuse and climate will not give flying up, tells you all you need to know about why the other side doesn’t believe us and why we will never win. The right does what they want without shame; we do what we want with shame, and then kick dirt on it like a kitty that just went in its own backyard. It stinks and is destroying the world either way.”

Chief Broom Awakens

To its credit, PIELC always makes an effort to involve Native people. In addition to an annual gathering with elders at the Student Longhouse, there is usually a panel or two focusing on a major Native issue. (One year actually saw Oregon Wild and others opposing the dam-busting/salmon-saving Klamath River deal the local tribes worked relentlessly for years to gain.) This year the issue is Celilo Falls, the great historical Native salmon-fishing/bartering site. The Columbia River falls were inundated and the culture greatly diminished with the construction of The Dalles Dam back in 1957.

The loss of Celilo was the underlying motif of Ken Kesey’s brilliant novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest; though you’d never know it from the movie – the main reason Ken refused to ever see the film. (What Hollywood did to Kesey’s magnificent novel of Northwest logging, Sometimes a Great Notion, was even worse!)

Where are the Youth?

“They may already have destroyed the planet. But, don’t let ‘em get yer day, too.”

As E-LAW panels get ever greyer and the same tired, worse-than-useless, foundation-inspired strategies get regurgitated, one can always count on some relief from the annual OutLAW Bash. A decidedly younger gathering takes place one night nearby; with music, libations and ever-popular bonfires of mock-ups of eco-destruction – a bulldozer here; an oil derrick there.

Hundreds of local youth activists and many not-so-young attend. Relationships are formed and/or solidified among the people who will be on the front lines fighting the usual Oregon eco-affronts – from the Big Green-darling Democrat Gov. John Kitzhaber’s absurd plan to double the cut on the Elliott State Forest to raise money for schools; to Big Green/pseudo-left-darling Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio and careerist “green” Andy Stahl’s insane plan to give half of the Bureau of Land Management’s southern Oregon forest lands (over 1 million acres) to a ”Trust” for logging as a way to fund Counties that even after ten years and over $1 billion in direct Federal Tax money are bankrupt due to Big Timber’s minimal taxation on their own vast holdings in these counties Big Timber controls politically; to, in the local case, a series of Forest Service timber sales up in Eugene’s watershed – along the nearby McKenzie River. These are logging projects that the collaborators kept to themselves; failed to inform the general public about; failed to stop and now the Appeals clock has run out. In this case, the self-anointed “Collaborators” even went so far as to demand that representatives of other local eco-groups be removed from the Forest Service-led discussions on the watershed.

OutLAW is all about camaraderie and successful resistance or, at least, going down fighting. As Wavy Gravy has noted regarding effective collective efforts – “It’s all done with people.”

One veteran activist had this to say about the curious lack of youth involvement: “I see the fresh-faced young activists (women, mostly–where are the guys these days?), all eager to throw themselves into this cesspool, and I frequently find myself being asked what they should do, given how awful our situation is. I tell them to be creative, be independent, don’t take at face value anything anyone says no matter whose side you THINK they’re on. Watch your back. Stand up for yourself and for your beliefs. Trust your hunches, your intuition. If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. Get out quick. Find people you feel you can trust, and assume you’re a lucky girl if five or ten years later only half of them are still around.”

Another veteran activist, Tim Hermach, tireless eco-defender from the Native Forest Council, gets the last word on E-LAW: “Twenty-six years ago 95% of the environmental law students were there to become lawyers to use the laws to save nature. After Oregon’s pro-business Republican Attorney General – the University’s biggest fund-raiser – Dave Frohnmayer became the Dean of the Law School and later President of the entire University, that slowly but steadily changed. So that today, it appears that 90% of environmental law students are there to assist corporations in working their way thru all those pesky and obstructive environmental protection laws – where they can receive much more lucrative incomes. This helps to explain the nature, content and panelists of many of the panels that are allowed to present at ELAW; when and where they are scheduled.”

LA Times Editorial on Recreation Fees

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one.

National forest fees work
The U.S. Forest Service should work to change the law regarding fees in national forests to reflect the realities of modern recreational use
.

Here’s the link.

March 1, 2012
Does a hiker go to the bathroom in the woods? It might matter, under a recent federal court ruling.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled correctly last month that parking fees were being wrongly levied in many areas of America’s national forests. A 2004 law is quite specific that it is impermissible to charge fees for parking or for “general use” of the forests. But while the court’s ruling was perfectly in line with the law, the real problem is with the law itself. Under its provisions, if you use the bathroom while hiking in the forest, you can be charged, but not if you use nature itself as the bathroom. Picnicking on the ground has to be free under the law, but eating at a picnic table could, at least theoretically, cost you, as could using a trash can.
The way the law was drafted, it’s all about whether forest visitors are using “developed” facilities. But as the examples above show, that’s a ludicrous distinction that is impossible to enforce, out of line with the procedures at most wilderness parks and ultimately harmful to the forests and their visitors.
Most national and state parks and many regional parks charge an entry fee for vehicles whether they’re headed to the trail or the interpretive center, understanding full well that hikers’ and bikers’ activities come with costs even if they don’t use the “developed” facilities. Most hikers require trail markers to guide them on their way. The heavily used trails themselves must be maintained. Anyone might need emergency rescue or medical help from rangers. And for that matter, why shouldn’t a parking lot be considered a developed facility?
One argument against fees is that they keep poor people from enjoying the forests. But at $30 a year, a forest Adventure Pass is one of the best bargains in Southern California. It’s less than a fourth the price of an annual pass to state parks and is good for unlimited day use of four forests — the Angeles, Cleveland, San Bernardino and Los Padres. A single-day pass to the forests costs $5 for a carload of visitors, less than half the price of most movie tickets for a single person. The gasoline to drive to the forest would generally cost more.
Most of the money is used in the local forests where it is collected. In 2006 alone, the fees paid for, among many items, adding 74 new portable bathrooms, refurbishing 123 picnic areas and removing 8,752 cubic yards of trash in the Southern California forests. But as a result of the law and the recent court ruling, the U.S. Forest Service is now planning to drop fees in many areas of the forests. Instead, the law should be changed to reflect the realities of modern recreational use.