Planning Rule Media Watch (2) – ENN and Asheville Times

First from the Environmental News Service (thanks to Terry Seyden). My comments in italics.

Obama’s New Forest Planning Rule Fails to Satisfy Conservationists

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2012/2012-01-26-091.html

WASHINGTON, DC, January 26, 2012 (ENS) – The Obama administration today proposed a new forest planning rule that will guide the management of 155 forests, 20 grasslands and one prairie in the National Forest System.
The rule provides the framework for U.S. Forest Service land management plans. Once approved, the final rule will update planning procedures that have been in place since 1982, creating a planning process that the the Forest Service says reflects the latest science and knowledge of how to create and implement effective land management plans.
Hiker explores White Mountain National Forest in Maine. (Photo by Bob Nichols courtesy USDA)
But, although plans would be required to provide habitat for plant and animal diversity and species conservation, several conservation groups say the new rule weakens protections for wildlife on national forests.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service under its jurisdiction considered nearly 300,000 public comments on the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement issued last February, to develop the agency’s preferred course of action for finalizing the planning rule.
“The most collaborative rulemaking effort in agency history has resulted in a strong framework to restore and manage our forests and watersheds and help deliver countless benefits to the American people,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said today. “Our preferred alternative will safeguard our natural resources and provide a roadmap for getting work done on the ground that will restore our forests while providing job opportunities for local communities.”
“This approach requires plans to conserve and restore watersheds and habitats while strengthening community collaboration during the development and implementation of individual plans,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.
“Under our preferred alternative, plan revisions would take less time, cost less money, and provide stronger protections for our lands and water,” said Tidwell. “Finalizing a new rule will move us forward in managing our forests and grasslands, and will create or sustain jobs and income for local communities around the country.”
In the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, PEIS, for the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule released today, the Forest Service requires that:

Plans must include components that seek to restore and maintain forests and grasslands.
Plans would include requirements to maintain or restore watersheds, water resources, water quality, including clean drinking water, and the ecological integrity of riparian areas.
Plans would be required to provide habitat for plant and animal diversity and species conservation. These requirements are intended to keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.
Plans would provide for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish.
Plans would be required to provide opportunities for sustainable recreation, and to take into account opportunities to connect people with nature.
Opportunities for public involvement and collaboration would be required throughout all stages of the planning process. The preferred alternative would provide opportunities for tribal consultation and coordination with state and local governments and other federal agencies, and includes requirements for outreach to traditionally under-represented communities.
Plans require the use of the best available scientific information to inform the planning process and documentation of how science was used in the plan.
The planning framework provides a more efficient and adaptive process for land management planning, allowing the Forest Service to respond to changing conditions.

The new PEIS is the Forest Service’s fourth attempt since 2000 to revise nationwide regulations governing national forests. All three previous attempts were challenged in court by the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity and allies, and all three prior attempts were found to be unlawful.

Like the 2000, 2005 and 2008 rules, the Obama administration’s planning rule would decrease longstanding protections for wildlife on national forests.

This statement sounds like it’s news and not the opinion of some. Just sayin’, reasonable people could disagree.

“Today’s rule is a step up from the Bush administration’s rule, but its protections are still a far cry from Reagan-era regulations that the Forest Service has been trying to weaken for 12 years,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the Center.
“Our publicly owned national forests should be a safe haven for wildlife,” said McKinnon. “In the face of unprecedented global climate change and other threats to species, the Forest Service should be trying to strengthen, not weaken, protections for wildlife on our public lands.”

If climate change is unprecedented, all the regulations in the world are not going to keep plant and wildlife species where they are now. There is an inherent conceptual difficulty here. Even if the FS did nothing at all (no recreation, no whatever) under certain scenarios different species are going to exit.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, served as head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the Clinton administration. She is not satisfied with the PEIS released today, saying, “The administration deserves credit for the genuine effort that it made to respond to public comments. Although we strongly support this historic shift in direction, we remain concerned about the adequacy of its wildlife conservation provisions and worry that the forest-planning rule makes promises that it can’t fully deliver.”

A notice of availability for the PEIS will be published in the Federal Register on February 3 with a Record of Decision on the final rule to follow within 30 days.

Clark said Defenders of Wildlife will be reviewing the rule more closely with an eye on improvements that can be made to ensure stronger protections for wildlife before the rule is finalized.

I am curious about what these might be, maybe we can get copies of a letter if they send one.

Here’s one from the Asheville Times

Forest Service
unveils new forest
rules

ASHEVILLE — Conservation groups
welcomed “with cautious optimism” news of
a new national forest planning rule unveiled
Thursday by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack.

In a media conference call, Vilsack
announced the release of the
environmental impact statement for the
new National Forest System Land
Management Planning Rule, saying there
would be a greater emphasis on science
and watershed protection while promoting
multiple uses such as logging and
recreation when developing new forest
management plans.

“The general impression is that we’re
cautiously optimistic about the new rule. It
puts importance on maintaining and
restoring the ecological integrity of national
forests, and we like that,” said Josh Kelly,
public lands field biologist with the WNC
Alliance, an Asheville-based conservation
nonprofit.

“I think the national forests do need a new
planning rule. Times have changed. But it’s
important that the rule is administered
correctly,” Kelly said. “It will require the
involvement of groups like the WNC Alliance
and the public to make sure the desired
outcome occurs.”

Forests have been operating under a
planning rule in place since 1982. Local
forest management plans, revised every 15
years, guide the agency on how to manager
for timber, wildlife, water, recreation and
other uses.

The planning rule provides the framework
for Forest Service land management plans
for the 155 forests, 20 grasslands and one
prairie in the National Forest System, which
make up 193 million acres and receive
more than 170 million visitors a year and
have a $13 billion economic impact on
local communities, Vilsack said.

The new planning rule comes at an
opportune time for Pisgah and Nantahala
national forests — two of four national
forests in North Carolina — that together
comprise about 1 million acres. The two
forests in Western North Carolina, which
receive some 5 million visitors a year,
operate under a joint management plan,
last revised in 1995.

“The Nantahala-Pisgah (plan) is up for
Advertisement revision, as it has been for a while. We’re
glad that it will be subject to the new
planning rule,” said Brent Martin, Sylva-
based Southern Appalachian regional
director for the Wilderness Society.

“We’re fairly pleased with the rule overall.
It’s a great improvement over the previous
rule,” he said. “This is what a lot of people
in the conservation community were waiting
to hear. Forest management is not just
about timber anymore. It’s about the
ecological services that forests provide.”

Strong public interest

The agency’s preferred course of action
was developed based on more than
300,000 comments received after the
draft plan was released to the public last
February, Vilsack said. A public forum in
Asheville last April drew about 80 people.

“This has undoubtedly has been the most
collaborative and transparent process used
in forest planning rules,” Vilsack said.

The new rules, which replace those thrown
out by a federal court in 2009, will focus
more on “solid science,” water quality,
forest restoration, wildlife, sustainable
recreation and the challenges of climate
change, while featuring greater public
collaboration and creating more jobs.

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said the
new planning rule also calls for allowing
individual Forest Service land management
plans to be completed more quickly, in
most cases cutting that time in half.

“In the past it took five-seven years to
develop a plan,” Tidwell said. “The new
planning process should cut that to three-
four years. It will be much more efficient.”

If approved, the new planning rules would
also provide for less expensive
management plans, said spokesman Stevin
Westcott. Instead of $5 million to $7
million, each plan revision would cost about
$3 million, he said.

A notice of availability for the planning rule
environmental impact statement will be
published in the Federal Register on Feb.
3, and Vilsack will issue a decision about a
month after that.

Planning Rule Opinion Boxscore

1. weakening protections of 82
Center for Biological Diversity

2. not satisfied
Defenders of Wildlife

3. Cautiously optimistic
WNC alliance

4. Fairly pleased; great improvement
Wilderness Society

Hmm. It seems so far that the regional groups interviewed were more positive than the national groups. It’s also interesting that the ENS chose to give CBD first crack at commenting, apparently because they litigated the previous rules. So litigation gives your opinion some kind of precedence in this media outlet? Worth thinking about. Let’s keep track for ourselves and see what kinds of patterns emerge.

Wash Post story on Planning Rule

Obama administration issues major rewrite of national forest rules

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/administration-issues-major-rewrite-of-forest-rules/2012/01/26/gIQAnquvTQ_story.html

By Juliet Eilperin, Thursday, January 26, 6:42 PM

The Obama administration finalized a rule Thursday governing the management of 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands, establishing a new blueprint to guide everything from logging to recreation and renewable energy development.

The guidelines — which will take effect in early March and apply to all 155 national forests, 20 grasslands and one prairie — represent the first meaningful overhaul of forest rules in 30 years. The George W. Bush administration had issued a management-planning rule for national forests in 2008, but a federal court struck it down the next year on the grounds that it did not provide adequate protection for plants and wildlife.

In announcing the new procedures, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they were crafted to enhance the nation’s water supplies while maintaining woodlands for wildlife, recreation and timber operations. The lands provide 20 percent of the nation’s drinking water, according to the U.S. Forest Service, an agency of the Agriculture Department.

“Restoration is the philosophy, with a focus on forest health and our water,” Vilsack told reporters in a conference call, adding that the rules require that planning decisions be “driven by sound science.”

The debate over how best to manage forests — especially in regions such as the Pacific Northwest — has pitted timber companies against environmentalists and some scientists for decades. On Thursday, administration officials emphasized that they had sought input from an array of constituencies to develop a plan that could minimize these public disputes.

“We expect to see much less litigation with this process,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.

The rule will serve as the guiding document for individual forest plans, which spell out exactly how these lands can be used. While these plans are updated periodically, Vilsack noted that half are more than 15 years old.

Michael Goergen, executive vice president and chief executive of the Society of American Foresters, said that given the scientific advances in the past three decades, “we need to put that knowledge to work and outdated rules aren’t going to help us. The new rules should be given a chance to work.”

Several environmentalists and scientists praised the guidelines, which were revised to include additional scientific safeguards after the department received 300,000 comments. But they cautioned that the rules gave local supervisors considerable discretion in their implementation.

“The vision is laudable, and this is no small shift in how the national forests will be managed, from one of commodity extraction into a vision of protection, restoration and water preservation,” said Dominick DellaSala, president and chief scientist for the Oregon-based Geos Institute.

Society for Conservation Biology policy director John Fitzgerald said the rule had “several weaknesses,” including the fact that it would “assume and not require the responsible official to show that the plan includes all practicable steps to conserve the full biological diversity” within a given forest.

Agriculture officials noted that the guidelines still compel managers to document how the “best-available scientific information” has guided decisions ranging from what areas should be logged to how officials are monitoring wildlife.

“We have 155 forests. They are not all alike,” Vilsack said. “That requires some flexibility and some acknowledgment of that uniqueness.”

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said the concerns that he and other lawmakers expressed about the planning rule’s impact on jobs “apparently fell on deaf ears.”

“These new Obama regulations introduce excessive layers of bureaucracy that will cost jobs, hinder proper forest management, increase litigation and add burdensome costs for Americans,” Hastings said.

Officials at the American Forest & Paper Association, which represents pulp, paper, packaging and wood products companies along with forest landowners, said they were “still reviewing” the blueprint. But the group had concerns “regarding the costly procedural requirements in the proposed rule,” said vice president and general counsel Jan Poling.

New Planning Rule Released!

Thanks to Terry Seyden for being on top of this one!
More (much more..) to follow. Send me stories you find and I will post.. terraveritas@gmail.com.

APNewsBreak: US to unveil new forest rules

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46144914#.TyFOmvmX2Zc

updated 1 hour 39 minutes ago

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Obama administration says new rules to manage nearly 200 million acres of national forests will protect watersheds and wildlife while promoting uses ranging from recreation to logging.

The new rules, to replace guidelines thrown out by a federal court in 2009, are set to be released Thursday by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. A summary was obtained by The Associated Press.
Vilsack said in an interview that the rules reflect more than 300,000 comments received since a draft plan was released last year. The new rules strengthen a requirement that decisions be based on the best available science and recognize that forests are used for a variety of purposes, Vilsack said.
“I think it’s a solid rule and done in a collaborative, open and transparent way,” he said.
The guidelines, known as a forest planning rule, will encourage forest restoration and watershed protection while creating opportunities for the timber industry and those who use the forest for recreation, he said.

Vilsack, who has pledged to break through the logjam of political conflict over forest management, said the new regulation’s emphasis on science and multiple uses should allow it to stand up to likely court challenges from environmental groups or the timber industry.

“I am hopeful and confident that it will stand scrutiny,” he said.
Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said the guidelines would allow land management plans for individual forests to be completed more quickly and at a lower cost than under current rules, which date to the Reagan administration.

Several attempts to revise the 1982 planning rule have been thrown out by federal courts in the past decade. Most recently a Bush administration plan was struck down in 2009. Environmentalists had fought the rule, saying it rolled back key forest protections.
The Obama administration did not appeal the ruling, electing to develop a new forest planning rule to protect water, climate and wildlife.

Under the new rule, forest plans could be developed within three to four years instead of taking up to seven years, as under current guidelines, Tidwell said.
“We really can protect the forest at lower cost with less time,” he said.
The new regulation also should give forest managers more flexibility to address conditions on the ground, such as projects to thin the forest to reduce the risk of wildfire, Tidwell said.
“We’ll be able to get more work done – get more out of the forest and create more jobs,” while at the same allowing greater recreational use, Tidwell said. Recreational use of the forest has grown exponentially in recent years.

Like Vilsack, Tidwell said he is optimistic the new plan will stand up to scrutiny from environmental groups and the timber industry, both of which have challenged previous planning rules in court.
“I’m optimistic that folks will want to give it a shot,” Tidwell said.
The 155 national forests and grasslands managed by the Forest Service cover 193 million acres in 42 states and Puerto Rico. Balance between industry and conservation in those areas has been tough to find since the existing rules went into effect three decades ago.
At least three revisions of the rules have been struck down since 2000.

The planning rule designates certain animal species that must be protected to ensure ecosystems are healthy. However, the rule became the basis of numerous lawsuits that sharply cut back logging to protect habitat for fish and wildlife.
Meanwhile, the timber industry has continued to clamor for more logs, and conservation groups keep challenging timber sales, drilling and mining projects.

___
Matthew Daly can be followed on Twitter: (at)MatthewDalyWDC
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Recovering $600 Billion by Collecting the Rent on our Public Lands

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for finding this…

Here’s the link. This is the project of the “Council of Elders” of the Resource Renewal Institute here.

Here is the description of the idea:

Council of Elders
The Council of Elders, a project of the Resource Renewal Institute, is comprised of retired and active resource managers, scientists, and environmentalists. The purpose of the Council is to improve today’s resource and environmental management through the lineage of Aldo Leopold, David Brower, John Muir, and other environmental elders of the past. We believe that to address today’s global climate challenges, environmental and resource management must adhere to strict professional standards that have been eroded since their peak in the environmental gains of the 1970′s. By assembling a new council for each chosen area of study, the Council of Elders concept benefits from professional expertise gained over decades on a single environmental challenge. Utilizing retirees greatly reduces costs while protecting and stewarding America’s natural resources with the wisdom of elders.

The Council of Elders aims to:

Document and improve the practices of resource and environmental management agencies
Serve as a non-partisan watchdog of American resource management
Advocate for and create increased transparency and universality of information used in political and resource management decision making
Work to unite state and federal agencies, non-profits, educational institutions, industry, and the public in responsible management of America’s natural resources
Bridge existing organizations with a membership composed of elder experts from a variety of professional fields including academia, government, and the private sector
Mentor active resource managers through regional support network of elder experts
Provide assistance to whistle-blowers

As an elder myself, interested in some of the same topics, I wonder who exactly these folks are.

Yet the document does not mention whom these people are who helped write it. The name on it is Lynn Alexander who is

Lynn M. Alexander, AICP

Lynn is an environmental planner and principal of LMA Consulting. She has worked with a wide range of federal, state and local agencies, special districts, consulting firms and non-profits. Lynn is a long-time member of the American Planning Association (APA) and a certified planner since 1992. She has served on the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) board of directors and conference committees and has coordinated several conferences and workshops. Recent projects have involved analyses of renewable and natural gas energy projects for state licensing. Lynn holds a B.A. in Environmental Studies from California State University and an M.S. in Environmental Management from the University of San Francisco. She is currently working on a second Council of Elders’ project for RRI that focuses on U.S. government subsidy reform.

RECOVERING $600 BILLION BY COLLECTING THE RENT ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS
By Lynn Alexander, for Resource Renewal Institute

Introduction
This paper initiates Resource Renewal Institute‟s second “Council of Elders” project: Recovering $600 Billion by Collecting the Rent. The Council of Elders aims to improve today‟s resource and environmental management through the combined expertise of retired resource management professionals. The paper is organized into five sections: oil and gas, mining, grazing, water subsidies and the Public Trust.

Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) believes the Council of Elders can help bring antiquated land management laws into the 21st century. The Council will examine federal land management policies and identify how governmental support of resource extraction on public land affects the Nation‟s public land resources and U.S. economic well-being.

As a group of experienced former resource management professionals, the Council of Elders has a window of opportunity to contribute our knowledge towards the goal of reforming outdated public land use laws. The articles collected here show that the historic and current practice of subsidizing the development of public resources and land is not only unbalanced, but extremely damaging to our environment and economy – and requires scrutiny.

The Issue: $600 Billion Uncollected Income from Public Land and Resources

The current U.S. fiscal policy governing the lease of public lands for resource exploitation is unsustainable, immoral and a drain on taxpayers. RRI has compiled this reader to show examples of how U.S. economic policies regarding resource management are skewed and need reform. Included is information from a variety of independent sources to illustrate how U.S. energy subsidies benefit wealthy companies and private entities rather than assisting those who need it most.

Despite a record national deficit of $1.47 trillion, our Congress continues to hand out generous subsidies and tax breaks to a wide range of favored interests. We estimate that these federal resource subsidies could amount to approximately $600 billion in federal giveaways.

Note from Sharon.. I am an elder, albeit not yet retired. What’s not a “subsidy”? What would be the basics for federal lands, above which everything else is subsidizing people’s interests? I would submit lands and law enforcement as essential.. all else is subsidizing one interest or another. Other ideas?

The subsidized would then include grazing, campgrounds, hospital water pipelines, trails, microwave towers, fuel treatments, etc. But of course, if they are from Mill Valley, there are “subsidies” for earthquake rebuilding, highways, etc. Where do we start? Where does it end? And most important of all, who gets to judge whose subsidies are simply undesirable and which are “immoral?”

How Fuel Treatments Saved Homes from the 2011 Wallow Fire Report

This report is very well-written and user-friendly (IMHO) and focuses on the topic with excellent photos (which a reader pointed out I had clipped and used without reference). Thanks much to the writers and photographers!

This fuel treatment effectiveness assessment was developed by:
Pam Bostwick, Fuels Specialist, U.S. Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, N.M.
Jim Menakis, Fire Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service, National Headquarters detached, Missoula, Mont.
Tim Sexton, District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service, Superior National Forest, Cook, Minn.
Report edited and designed by:
Paul Keller, Technical Writer-Editor, Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center

Social acceptance of fire needed in climate-changing forest – Climatewire interview

Social acceptance of fire needed in climate-changing forests

From Climate wire

my comments in italics

Published: Monday, January 23, 2012

The future of managing wildfires in the face of climate change is going to require different tools and strategies, but also something a bit more difficult to swallow — encouraging burning instead of stifling it.

In the future, forest managers will need to “try to work with fire, rather than fighting it,” said David Peterson, research biologist at the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Station. “If we allowed more wildfires to burn, that could be beneficial,” he added. Fire is considered part of a natural cycle in forest ecology, and encouraging small fires could help prevent bigger, more damaging ones.

The U.S. Forest Service has issued a report on how to address forest management in the face of climate change, looking at resource management on national forests and, potentially, other federal lands. Fire management, pest control and watershed management are some of the areas where practices will need to change, said report co-author Peterson in an interview with ClimateWire.

Letting fires burn, instead of stifling them at all costs, is not an easy sell politically or socially, said Peterson. But those who live in the wildland-urban interface, the transitional zone between residential clusters and the wilderness, are becoming more aware.

“I think they’re getting much more savvy about the scientific concept of fire,” he said, calling the interface one of the biggest social challenges for the Forest Service.

It’s not clear what this means- if they understand “the scientific concept” does that mean they are not as interested in fire suppression around their homes? Also notice that wildland-urban is defined as “the transitional zone between residential clusters and the wilderness”. There are plenty of lands that are adjacent to communities that are “wildlands” but not “wilderness.”

More partnerships between federal, state and private lands would bring together a fragmented landscape to tackle some of the climate-driven problems that have plagued forests in the past years. These include fires, pine beetle epidemics and floods.

“They don’t care about where that dotted map is, and they don’t care about any individual ownership,” Peterson said.

Water, roads and infrastructure are also at risk, said Peterson who has seen a distinctive change in the flows, levels and patterns of rivers. Floods, mudslides and other severe events that were once considered 100-year events are occurring more frequently.
‘Forest thinning’ gets a new boost

The Forest Service compiled several existing management changes across their forests to provide examples for the framework. In Washington state’s Olympic National Park, for example, foresters took on an effort to completely redesign the roads and culverts to withstand a higher water load, expected as torrential rains become more frequent. In California’s Inyo National Forest, staff created a decisionmaking tool that offered the implications of hundreds of different possible decisions, given a likely climate change scenario.

“In taking a risk management approach to adaptation, what we are doing is preparing for changes rather than changing what’s there,” said the Forest Service’s climate change adviser, David Cleaves.

Forest thinning, part of the “fuel treatments” that the Forest Service employs to reduce fire risk, will also increase given future predictions for climate change, said Peterson. Last year, legislators in Western states expressed frustration at a perceived lack of preventive action to halt forest fires, mandated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Last year saw some record-breaking wildfires, including Arizona’s 550,000-acre Wallow fire.

But forest thinning, and its possibility of increase, has come under scrutiny. A report from Oregon State University issued last May questioned the practice of thinning as an effective climate strategy, as it reduces the size of forest carbon sinks — the wood mass that absorbs and holds carbon from entering into the atmosphere.

So we are doing fuel treatments to protect communities from fire, which is expected to increase due to climate change, but doing so is not an “effective climate strategy” based on this study. So confusing as we are mixing adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change. Also, to me it’s not that clear that we would not have to do WUI fuel treatments if there were no climate change.. in other words in the absence of climate change, given western ecosystems’ historic fire patterns, it still would be a good idea to do WUI fuel treatment.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as other environmental groups, has cast doubt on the use of forest thinnings to burn for biomass electricity, saying the rising demand may soon damage forests more than help them.

Thinning forests, and thinning them and using the thinned material for biomass, are two different things. This is confusing because we should be clear on whether NRDC and others doubt thinning for fuels reduction, as perhaps needed for fires under climate change, or doubt using the products for biomass. Based on this NRDC fears are based on scale, and not the technology per se.

“There have been a number of these types of articles,” said Peterson of the study. “Some say it’s a net deficit [of carbon], some say it’s a net positive, some say it’s neutral.”

For now, the Forest Service do not consider carbon sequestration when planning fuel treatments. The risks of devastating burning and millions of dollars in damage tip the scale to meeting current needs, said Cleaves.

“You may have to incur [carbon] emissions costs to achieve risk reduction,” he said. “You don’t have to do that in every situation, but it sure is possible.”

Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project

Snow covers Hyalite Reservoir in the Gallatin National Forest on March 22, 2010. Bozeman receives 80 percent of its municipal water from both Hyalite and Bozeman Creeks; both drainages flowing into the city's water intakes will be part of the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project and subject to forest thinning and prescribed burning to mitigate potential water contamination from a large forest fire.

Thanks to Derek for these.

Here’s an editorial from the Bozeman Chronicle:

Editorial: Protecting Bozeman’s water supply is our best long-term plan

Posted: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:00 am

Right on cue, a trio of environmental groups has again challenged a plan to protect the main Bozeman municipal water sources from catastrophic wildfire.

The plan calls for treating 4,800 acres of the Hyalite and Sourdough creek drainages with timber harvests, thinning and controlled burns to reduce the amount of potential fuel for a wildfire that will certainly burn through the area at some point in the future. A catastrophic fire in these drainages in their present condition would produce ash and silt and trigger erosion that could overwhelm the city’s water system.

Challenging the proposal for the third time, The Alliance for a Wild Rockies, the Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and the Native Ecosystem Council contend the plan will disrupt lynx and grizzly habitat and eliminate cover for elk.

Though it will probably fall on deaf ears, here’s a different argument to consider for abandoning this challenge:

People are moving to Montana. They are buying up what was once agricultural land and turning it into housing developments. Much of the open space we all value so much as part of our quality of life is being consumed in the process.

The best way to combat this trend is to concentrate this immigration of new Montanans as much as possible – in cities. Bozeman is the best location on the northwest corner of the Yellowstone ecosystem – among blue-ribbon trout rivers and in between major wilderness areas – to accommodate as much of this population growth as possible.

To do that, though, the city needs water. And protecting the city’s primary sources of potable water is one of the best ways to ensure that Bozeman can accommodate smart growth. If the environmental groups hamper the city’s ability to maintain and increase its water supply, they will be forcing new population out into the countryside where more valuable open space will be consumed.

Make no mistake: Montana’s population is going to grow, whether we like it or not. And it is incumbent upon the state’s cities to accommodate that growth by building up, not out.

Environmental groups can help the cities accomplish this by working with them – not against them – as they seek to responsibly protect and expand their municipal water supplies.

Here’s an article from earlier in the week.

Conservation groups challenge watershed plan for third time

CARLY FLANDRO, Chronicle Staff Writer | Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:15 am

Conservation groups on Tuesday challenged a proposed thinning and prescribed-burn project in forests south of Bozeman that aims to protect the city’s drinking water.

It’s the group’s third time challenging the proposal.

“Simply stated, the agency’s proposal breaks a number of laws and this time around is no different,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

The Gallatin National Forest’s plan, called the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project, calls for burning, harvesting and thinning 4,800 acres in the Hyalite and Bozeman Creek drainages. Those drainages supply more than 80 percent of the Bozeman community’s water, and thinning efforts there are intended to reduce the extent of any potential wildfires.

A severe wildfire could put so much sediment and ash in the creeks that the treatment plant couldn’t handle it and would have to shut down, according to Marna Daley, forest spokeswoman.

Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and Native Ecosystems Council joined the Alliance for the Wild Rockies in challenging the plan.

The groups say the project would log federally designated lynx critical habitat and core grizzly bear habitat, and that it would remove elk hiding cover and destroy habitat for other old-growth-dependent species. They also worry the logging and road building would add sediment to creeks containing the native westslope cutthroat trout, which is listed as a “species of special concern.”

“Those same creeks also supply Bozeman’s municipal water,” said Steve Kelly, a board member for two of the conservation groups. “The best thing we could do for wildlife, fish, opportunities for backcountry recreation and solitude, and our drinking-water supply, would be to back away from this foolish project and enjoy the forest’s many enduring gifts.”

Garrity also alleged that some areas affected by the plan have been inaccurately designated as wildland-urban interface zones.

Daley said she has not yet seen the challenge but said the Gallatin National Forest is committed to moving forward with the project.

“We’re very confident the decision is a good decision,” she said of the most recent proposal. “We look forward to moving toward the implementation of the project in the near future.”

Daley said the challenge will go to the regional forester for review, and he’ll decide in about six weeks whether to uphold the forest’s plan.

The city of Bozeman partnered with the Gallatin National Forest to produce the watershed plan.

It’s interesting to me that we’re only hearing one side of the story from the article..

For the curious, here’s the site of information on the project, including a video.

Here’s a part of the ROD about sedimentation

Sedimentation concerns from our actions or no action
The Forest fuels specialist and hydrologist modeled the current vegetative and fuels conditions in the two drainages, and showed that a wildfire in average humidity and wind conditions could generate an increase in sediment of 250% over natural conditions (FEIS, p 3-40). A wildfire in more extreme weather conditions could cause even higher increases in sedimentation. The City of Bozeman water treatment plant currently can handle only small increases in sediment and ash and certainly not levels modeled for a wildfire under moderate or more extreme conditions.
Our effects analysis also showed that the vegetation treatments in Alternative 6 could reduce potential fire size by 54% when a wildfire occurs in the project area (FEIS, p 2-29 and p 3-29). Further analysis showed that a 4,000 acre fire in the project area after implementation of Alternative 6 would likely increase sediment 30% above natural in the Hyalite Creek drainage, and increase sediment 54% above natural in the Bozeman Creek drainage. The same size fire without treatment would produce sediment increases of 56% and 105% in those same drainages, respectively (SFEIS p. 172). A 2,000 acre fire after implementation of Alternative 6 is predicted to increase sediment by 18% over natural in Hyalite Creek and 32% in Bozeman Creek versus 31% and 57%, respectively, without treatment. The Bozeman Municipal Water Treatment plant is challenged to efficiently treat water when sediment levels exceed even 30% over natural, so 50% or greater increases could result in multiple day reductions in plant efficiency. This analysis convinced me that Alternative 6 will be effective in meeting the purpose and need for the project, and that the no action alternative, is not acceptable when the drinking water of an entire community is at stake.

Maybe I’m missing something, but if seeking safe drinking water makes people “break laws”, then what would be the proposal to meet the purpose and need that would not “break laws”?; if there is no such proposal conceivable, then it would appear that something is wrong with our framework with laws and regulations (or case law)..

Possible Agency Reorganization and Efficiencies

Mono Lake Visitor's Center- home of new photovoltaics

The idea of moving NOAA to Interior has a certain appeal, especially with regard to their regulatory responsibilities for fish, and so that their scientific research could be better coordinated with others, most notably USGS.

Here are two stories in the Washington Post

A couple of weeks ago, the Chief visited our office and talked about banding together with USDA to reduce costs of purchased items through the power of numbers. I was reminded of this when I read the below article.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that different federal agencies need to negotiate through separate processes? Maybe we should allow DOE to negotiate a standard price for all federal agencies in a given area with a utility?

Some idle solar energy projects may soon connect to grid
Two federal agencies and Southern California Edison say they’re close to ending a long impasse that has made renewable energy projects sit unused. Negotiations with a third agency are tougher.

By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

January 21, 2012
Southern California Edison and two federal agencies said Friday they are only weeks away from resolving a years-long disagreement over connecting renewable energy projects to the grid.

The parties reached a preliminary agreement one week after Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Edison urging the utility to end an impasse that had frustrated the government because solar projects were sitting idle long after they had been built. Utilities elsewhere in California have signed similar interconnection agreements with few problems or delays.

Despite the progress this week, Edison and a third federal agency, the National Park Service, remain at odds over millions of dollars’ worth of solar projects on the agency’s lands.

Under the tentative deal with the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Edison will use a General Services Administration utilities contract to end the dispute. The contract will apparently resolve the main sticking point, which is the government’s liability for future damages.

“We think we have a solid path,” said Steve Pickett, Edison’s executive vice president of external relations. “Our plan is to continue to negotiate with all the agencies and hope to come to a resolution in the next couple of weeks.”

The Forest Service said Friday that it expected to have its two projects — including a solar facility at the Mono Lake visitors center — connected to the grid soon.

The disagreement has gone on for nearly three years and has hindered the agencies’ ability to meet renewable energy goals at a time when they are rushing to comply with orders to reduce their carbon footprints. Equally troubling is the financial fallout, officials say. The agencies could have saved tens of thousands of dollars in utility bills during the years spent in conflict with Edison, they said.

Negotiations with the Park Service have been stickier.

Pickett said the agency balked at a point involving dispute resolution. Under state law, he said, disagreements about power pricing are to be resolved by the state Public Utilities Commission. The Park Service believes such disputes with federal agencies should be taken up in federal court, Edison said.

Of the two dozen projects currently idle, most are in national parks in Southern California.

Park Service officials were not available for comment Friday.

Op-ed on Heritage Act by Former Forest Supervisors

Guest opinion: Front legislation reflects local concerns

Story
Discussion

By GLORIA FLORA, SPIKE THOMPSON and RICK PRAUSA | Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:00 am | No

Two years ago, three former chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service asked Montana’s congressional delegation to support a local Montana effort aimed at protecting the Rocky Mountain Front. This is the first time that three former leaders of the Forest Service put their collective weight behind a collaborative process that would help manage a national forest. At the time they called it “the right prescription for the right place at the right time.”

The Heritage Act, a sensible and balanced proposal put forth by the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, was developed by ranchers, conservationists and others who live in and around the Front.

A year later, Sen. Max Baucus was impressed enough with this citizen-led initiative that he introduced the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. In so doing, he also recognized the outstanding natural and cultural values of the Front and committed to protecting them for the use and enjoyment of generations to come.

In addition to the three chiefs of the Forest Service and three former Montana Bureau of Land Management directors, five former Lewis and Clark National Forest supervisors have endorsed the RMFHA. Together these land managers had 38 years of line officer experience spanning nine administrations dating back to President Lyndon Johnson.

We support the Heritage Act because, based upon our experience, it offers the best way to protect the wildlife, clean water, outstanding natural scenery, and cultural heritage of the Front is to develop a balanced plan. The Heritage Act meets these criteria by providing the Forest Service with the management flexibility to fight fire, harvest trees, and provide for motorized and nonmotorized recreation while defining a clear mandate to protect native habitat and opportunities for traditional backcountry experiences on foot and horseback.

Citizen-based collaborative problem-solving is a relatively new phenomenon for management of our national forests. Thankfully, the Heritage Act was developed using an exemplary collaboration that encouraged broad and meaningful public participation.

The Heritage Act, a sensible and balanced proposal put forth by the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, was developed by ranchers, conservationists and others who live in and around the Front. Hunters support the Heritage Act because it assures access to their favorite game areas and protects habitat for thriving wildlife populations. Motorized recreation users support it because it doesn’t close a single mile of roads or trails currently open for their use. Conservationists back it because it is a comprehensive plan that includes wilderness. Ranchers back it because it maintains their grazing privileges while helping to fight noxious weeds across all ownerships.

For these reasons, we wholeheartedly support this bill and urge the delegation to work to secure its speedy passage. This is the right prescription for the right place at the right time.

By enacting the Rocky Mountain Heritage Act, Congress will be laying down a solid framework for the careful conservation of the multiple resources and values of this extraordinary landscape. We endorse both the hard work that’s gone into crafting the Heritage Act and the final product itself.

Former Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisors Spike Thompson (2004-2011); Rick Prausa (1999-2003); and Gloria Flora (1995-1998) wrote this opinion.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-front-legislation-reflects-local-concerns/article_db55790f-2a05-530f-95ff-29d906a04506.html#ixzz1k7AN0h4N

Here’s a link to the Coalition to Save the Rocky Mountain Front.

Oregon: Murrelet and State Forests

Thanks to Bob Zybach for this, I think it deserves its own post.Here’s the link.

Conservation groups say logging approved by Oregon Department of Forestry harms marbled murrelets

Published: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 2:57 PM Updated: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 5:14 PM
Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

Three conservation groups plan to sue the Oregon Department of Forestry, saying logging on three state forests is killing or displacing protected marbled murrelets.

The lawsuit notice, announced Thursday, is the latest smack against the department’s management of the Elliott, Clatsop and Tillamook state forests. The conservation groups Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands and Audubon Society of Portland are particularly critical of the department’s decision to increase logging on state forests.

The groups allege logging has killed or displaced murrelets and fragmented its habitat. In addition to directly harming the murrelets, reducing its habitat and logging near the edge allows predator jays and ravens access to raid murrelet nests, the groups allege.

Josh Laughlin, campaign director for Cascadia Wildlands, said the groups have retained experts who will testify the department’s practices have harmed the birds.

Marbled murrelets are robin-sized seabirds that forage in the ocean but nest in mature or old growth forests. They are listed as threatened in Oregon, Washington and California under the federal Endangered Species Act.

State officials maintain they take prudent measures to avoid harming murrelets. According to department documents, officials conduct about 1,500 surveys for murrelets annually and manage forests through a “take avoidance” policy. In an April 2011 report to the Oregon Board of Forestry, the department said it has designated more than 20,000 acres as marbled murrelet management areas in northwest Oregon.

According to the report, four timber sales totaling 654 acres have taken place inside or adjacent to murrelet management areas since 1996. “Seasonal restrictions” on logging are applied so nesting is not disrupted, according to the department.

Conservation groups believe the department should adopt more restrictive habitat conservation plans for murrelets.