Inside sources have revealed to SOS Forests that it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who inserted language into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which disqualifies material gathered from National Forests as a source of renewable biofuels material [here].
Pelosi’s spokesperson revealed that she included the language in the energy bill during an informal conference without debate.
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) has introduced a bill, S. 2558, which would amend the Act’s definition of renewable biomass to include, “Materials, pre-commercial thinnings, or removed exotic species that . . . are harvested from National Forest System land or public lands” in accordance with existing Healthy Forests Restoration Act requirements on logging [here].
“To exclude slash piles and other wastes from within our national forests to be counted towards the Renewable Fuels Standard simply makes no sense,” said Thune in a press release. “My legislation will allow national forests like South Dakota’s Black Hills National Forest to be used in a more sustainable manner that will help improve our economy, our environment and our national energy needs.”
John Thune came to the Senate by defeating Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.
Thune introduced the bill Jan. 25, which was referred to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. It is likely that Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will NOT hold any hearings or markups on it.
Pelosi opposed the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act. No record exists of any debate on excluding U.S. National Forests from the energy bill, but all sources, including her own spokesperson, point directly to backroom legislative hijacking by Pelosi.
January 31, 2008 | Leave a Comment | Topic: Politics and politicians, Federal forest policy
Last December Drs. K. Norman Johnson and Jerry F. Franklin gave public testimony calling for forest restoration, protection, and maintenance. The statement was given before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests (Chair Ron Wyden, OR), who heard testimony regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the forests of Oregon and Washington.
The following are excerpts from that testimony (full testimony [here]).
Our definition of “restoration” is the re-establishment of ecological structures and processes on these forests where they have been degraded and, simultaneously, restoration of economic and other social values on these lands…
These forests… differ greatly from their historical condition in having much higher stand densities and basal areas, lower average stand diameters, much higher percentages of drought- and fire-intolerant species (such as white or grand fir), and many fewer (or no) old-growth trees…
We will lose these forests to catastrophic disturbance events unless we undertake aggressive active management programs…
This is not simply an issue of fuels and fire; because of the density of these forests, there is a high potential for drought stress and related insect outbreaks. Surviving old-growth pine trees are now at high risk of death to both fire and western pine beetle, the latter resulting from drought stress and competition. Many fir-dominated stands are now at risk of catastrophic outbreaks of insect defoliators, such as the spruce budworm, as has occurred at many locations on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range in both Oregon and Washington. Without action, we are at high risk of losing these stands–and the residual old-growth trees that they contain–to fire and insects…
January 31, 2008 | 1 Comment | Topic: Saving Forests
Dear Committee,
I am a practicing professional consulting forester. It has come to my attention that the Wildland Fire Leadership Council will be holding a meeting on Feb. 5, and that they have invited the Society of American Foresters to present a position statement on wildland fire.
Here is my view of the WFLC: they have been captured by pro-fire entities including the Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Society, two big international non-governmental organizations (BINGO’s).
For the last few years the WFLC has been heavily promoting the idea of let-it-burn, variously termed WFU’s, Wildland Use Fires, Wildland Fires Used for Resource Benefit, or “suppression” fires that are more or less unmanned and unfought (de facto WFU’s).
Although no NEPA process has been followed, the WFLC has promulgated maps, models, and statements of intent to let burn more than 50 percent of the entire National Forest system, and is adding more acres all the time. Record fire seasons and record fires have resulted. The largest fires in state recorded history, and/or the most expensive, have occurred in the last ten years in OR, WA, ID, MT, CO, UT, NV, AZ, NM, and CA.
Megafires originating on Federal land have escaped and burned tens of millions of private acres, rural and urban alike. Suppression costs have soared into the $billions per year. But much worse, the damages to forest resources and other assets, public and private alike, has been in the tens of $billions each year this century, and is getting worse year by year.
January 29, 2008 | 5 Comments | Topic: Federal forest policy
Note: this essay was originally posted at SOS Forests (Old Version) [here].
The following report was sent to me by resident X, who wishes her name hidden to preclude acts of retribution. The report describes the Skates Fire, a 2006 whoofoo (WFU or wildland use fire) on the Gila N.F.
The fire was called the Skates Fire. They lit a back burn during high wind conditions. Stupid. Yes, it was a whoofoo.
They decided to bring the fire within ¼ mile of our property lines. I am not joking here. They put the smoke monitor miles away. I know of one person put in a nursing home that did not come out again due to the Skates Fire.
I forced them after the fire was out of control for 24 hours to suppress. I think I read that rule somewhere. I am not into suppression but when safety and private property is at stake, it makes sense to me not to burn.
The USFS agents were very pissed at me. There was a lot of slander in the local cafes later because I would not let them at 2 AM burn my land.
My horses were freaked out and one colicked that night. The USFS were rocketing the mountain. Burning my sliver of land would not help them, and the way they were burning I was worried they would burn all my fencing, hay, and barn, not to mention jumping the road.
I would not let them come on my land and they were pissed. I had two angry men yelling at me at 2 in the morning. They even had the gall to say, “See what Nature is going to bring you.” They were threatening and intimidating.
I know one of their names.
January 29, 2008 | 1 Comment | Topic: Federal forest policy
Chris Horgan of Stewards of the Sequoia [here] sent the following clipping from the Seattle Post-It [here].
The clipping is a Letter-to-the-Editor written by Chris West of the American Forest Resource Council [here].
Mike Dombeck’s guest column on the Roadless Rule ignores reality (”Fight over Roadless Area rule in national forests is purposeless,” [here]).
First, a little history — several western governors asked the Clinton administration to be formal partners in the development of a Roadless Rule as provided for under NEPA — they were denied. Then when the states and public were asked to comment on the proposal, there were no detailed maps on which to make informed assessments. Just think of the all negative editorials had a president proposed a rule involving just a million acres of timber, grazing or mining use without providing detailed maps.
After years, not days, the Bush administration offered a new roadless protection plan where governors could petition the Secretary of Agriculture to protect those truly unique roadless areas within their borders — a process allowing for meaningful public involvement and informed decision making. This was an attempt to find a solution to conflicting court rulings, but this too was challenged in the courts. Thankfully several governors have taken advantage of this new process, drawing lines on maps and getting roadless areas protected in their states.
So where are these catastrophic and budget busting wildfires occurring? They are overwhelmingly in national forests where more than 60 percent of the land is either roadless or wilderness. Both in number of large fires and acres burned. Not only are these unnatural events costing taxes payers billions, but they are destroying critical wildlife habitat, key watersheds, threatening communities and releasing green house gasses. Just look at the devastating fires over the past seven years in Washington and Oregon — blackened and charred roadless forests don’t lie. Some may want to put the blame on the changing climate, but adjacent state and private forests have very different results when these wildfires cross the property boundary.
So, while President Clinton and Chief Dombeck had hoped their legacy was going to be nearly 60 million acres of preserved roadless areas, the reality is a devastated landscape, polluted air, silted streams and not enough money to fulfill the Forest Service’s mission of “Caring for the land and serving the people.”
Chris West — American Forest Resource Council, Portland OR
Thank you Chris and Chris.
Added bonus: for an excellent slide show, see Save Our Forest from the Stewards of the Sequioa [here]
January 28, 2008 | Leave a Comment | Topic: Federal forest policy
Recent calls for active management of our National Forests are based on the very evident fact that the set-aside of forests into No Touch “un-management” zones ends up destroying those forests.
Wilderness Areas, Roadless Areas, riparian reserves, Late Successional Reserves, and other No Touch zones are burning up in catastrophic megafires. The megafires kill all trees, including old-growth, incinerate wildlife, violently consume habitat, convert ecosystems to weedy brush, pollute air and water, destroy recreation opportunities, uglify scenery, and generally result in outcomes at total odds with the mission and purposes of our land management agencies.
Un-management destroys all the values the US Forest Service was established to protect. Un-management is also destroying the USFS itself. Since inception of their un-management program, the USFS has lost more than two-thirds of its personnel and most of its professional stewardship expertise. Their capacity to manage public lands, even if the agency wanted to, has been crippled.
The imposition of un-management land set-asides is wrecking the very values the land was ostensibly set aside for.
The only active program the USFS has left is whoofoos, so-called Wildland Use Fires, more properly let-it-burn fires that hasten the demise of our public forests.
In their hysteria to shut down all stewardship, proponents of un-management have left millions of acres of public and private land permanently scarred. Megafires have not been contained on un-managed Federal forests, but instead have ravaged private countryside and urban areas alike. No Touch, Let It Burn has caused hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to resource and human values over the last 20 years.
The Precautionary Principle cautions against forest management for fear the outcomes might be bad. Yet un-management justified by the Precautionary Principle has directly resulted in horrendous outcomes, without any shadow of a doubt. The movement to “save the ecology” has left tens of millions of acres of ecosystems in smoking ruins.
New legislation is being devised to counteract the trend toward un-management. Such efforts are often touted as “compromises” between loggers and environmentalists. Loggers and environmentalists are special interest groups that do not represent the majority of Americans, nor does either group offer any management program that would save our forests.
The only “special interest groups” that offer viable solutions are those that advocate active, professional stewardship of our public lands, in order to protect, maintain, and perpetuate forests. Good stewardship means active management that protects rather than destroys forest and natural landscape values.
No doubt, whatever legislation is proposed, the anti-management, pro-destruction special interest groups will fume and sputter. It is important that the American public, whose land it is, not be fooled by deep-pocket, globalist industrialists, no matter whether they are putatively “loggers” or “environmentalists.” Both those lobbies are mega-rich, mega-powerful, and think they run this country. But they don’t.
Stewardship is not successful if it is restricted to a tiny percentage of the landscape. Unless the majority of acres are treated, megafires will erupt on the un-managed portions and spread to all lands. Wilderness, roadless, and other set-aside zones are ticking time bombs that wreak destruction far beyond their regulatory boundaries.
Unless the new legislation legitimizes stewardship on the majority of the public acres, we will not be able to stem the tide of megafires and environmental destruction. Congress and the public need to realize that un-management is not the answer; in fact, it is the problem.
January 28, 2008 | 1 Comment | Topic: Saving Forests
For comparative purposes (with DeFazio’s PNW Forest Legacy Act linked to in the previous post), as well as a general lesson in the gobbledy gook of environmental law, we present the text of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 [here].
January 28, 2008 | Leave a Comment | Topic: Pacific Northwest Forest Legacy Act
SOS Forests has obtained a copy of the Pacific Northwest Forest Legacy Act: Discussion Draft.
Download the full text [here] (pdf format, 794 KB)
Note: you will need to reorient the pages in Adobe Reader with the tool bar menu command View>Rotate View>Counterclockwise.
I discussed the incipient PNW Forest Legacy Act [here], and that Congressman Peter DeFazio (D, OR) was preparing it. The discussion draft is slated to appear on a new website DeFazio has established [here]. The draft is not there yet, but SOS Forests has it and we link to it above.
My first impression is that there are many poorly worded sections, a few good ones, and a great deal missing. Overall, I am disappointed.
However, it is very early in the process. Peter DeFazio and the rest of Congress could use some assistance in modifying the PNWFLA so that it accomplishes the right goals while minimizing unintended consequences. Some clauses need to be dropped, some altered, and entirely new ones added. That’s the purpose of a discussion draft.
This is an opportunity to discuss and debate the mission of the US Forest Service and how the right mission might best be achieved, in the Pacific Northwest at any rate.
In future posts I will parse the discussion draft and offer constructive criticism, in the hopes that suggested modifications are adopted. I invite your participation in that effort. (Much of that group-thinking may occur in the Members Forum rather than here at SOS Forests. The Forum is the best place for multiple folks to jigger with legal language.)
As it stands right now, I would not support the legislation, but if it were modified in the right ways, I possibly could. More importantly, the debate/discussion could be the most productive aspect of the whole process, whether or not the bill gets passed.
We have been and shall be engaging in the debate/discussion. The PNW Forest Legacy Act is the next venue, and we are looking forward to the show.
January 26, 2008 | 6 Comments | Topic: Pacific Northwest Forest Legacy Act
The following collection of items extracted from the Web tell a story all by themselves.
ZACA FIRE UPDATE [here]
USDA Forest Service - Los Padres National Forest, Last Modified: 10/04/07
“The Zaca Fire burned in very steep and rugged terrain, and while there are islands of unburned vegetation, there are vast areas that are a moonscape now,” Forest Supervisor Peggy Hernandez explained. “With the vegetation gone, there is nothing to hold the soil in place, so the land is very unstable. Dry landslides, rockslides and other erosion is occuring on a daily basis. We expect mudslides and flash flooding when the rains come. Out of concern for public safety, and to allow the watersheds to begin to heal, I will keep the burned area closed to public entry at least through spring 2008,” she added.
“The burned or otherwise disturbed soils are very vulnerable, especially to wheeled vehicles, until vegetation gets reestablished,” said Hernandez. “We know people are anxious to get back into their national forest, but we are asking for their patience and cooperation.”
Preliminary surveys of the burned area show that many hiking trails have been severely damaged by the fire and are completely impassable. “Our volunteers are very anxious to get in there and help reestablish the trails. Unfortunately, it may be some time before the ground is stable enough to allow them to be rebuilt,” said Santa Barbara District Ranger Cindy Chojnacky.
The Zaca Fire started on July 4, and burned approximately 240,207 acres before it was contained on September 2. It is the second largest fire in California’s recorded history and the largest in Santa Barbara County’s recorded history.
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Dry ravel erosion has obliterated the Santa Cruz Trail near the San Rafael Wilderness boundary.
Photo Credit: Lori Rafferty
Courtesy the USDA Forest Service
Read more
January 24, 2008 | Leave a Comment | Topic: 2007 Fire Season
None other than Mr. Mensa himself sent us a comment, in response to a post we entitled Global Cooling Sets In [here]. Out of respect for the august reputation of the author, we reprise Mr. Mensa’s comment in full:
Mike - Stick to the forestry issues - when you post global warming-related comments you sound just plain silly.
It’s a bit early for your 2008 and 2009 predictions.
Despite your misinformation, here are the facts:
For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880.
Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.
2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.
Get your facts straight buddy!
Well, indeed! I rise to that bait like a trout to a fly!
In this preface to my reply to Mr. Mensa, which is this essay, I must first establish some turf. “Stick to forestry” advises Mr. Mensa. Well sir, climatology is a sub-specialty of foresters and forestry.
Foresters are generalists, meaning they have to know quite a bit about many fields. These include botany, zoology, ecology, natural history, anthropology, hydrology, engineering, statistics, economics, business, sociology, meteorology, and yes, climatology, especially in this day and age. Others may specialize, but foresters must be generalists because their responsibilities encompass all those disciplines.
The sciences may be compartmentalized, but the forest cannot be; the forest is the sum of all the parts, all mixed together.
So I am, in fact, highly qualified to discuss global warming and/or cooling, as I shall amply demonstrate.
January 24, 2008 | 5 Comments | Topic: Saving Forests
