Photo by Ellen Miller

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Logging proposed near Crater Lake National Park sparks a timber wars reprise

Logging proposed near Crater Lake National Park sparks a timber wars reprise



Scott Learn, The Oregonian
By Scott Learn, The Oregonian 
on February 26, 2013 at 8:20 PM, updated February 26, 2013 at 8:21 PM
Email
BybeePix.JPGView full sizeU.S. Forest Service timber planner Jason Herron scouts potential logging locations for the Bybee timber sale in 2010. 
A logging proposal just outsideCrater Lake National Parkhas reignited the Northwest's logging wars in miniature, pitting timber groups anxious for jobs against environmentalists who have gathered 10,000 comments in opposition.

The U.S. Forest Service's proposed Bybee timber salecovers 16,215-acres, running up to the western border of Oregon's only national park.

A coalition of Oregon environmental groups has lined up against the project. The sale would cut 300- to 400-year-old trees, said George Sexton, conservation director for the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center.

It would run new logging roads into fingers of forest last logged more than 60 years ago, Sexton said, effectively functioning as wilderness in one of Oregon's highest-value recreation areas.

In recent years, environmental groups have agreed to two similarly sized thinning projects in southern Oregon's national forests, in part to help reduce fire risk.

But the Bybee proposal goes well beyond thinning of young trees, Sexton said, with trees up to 4 feet in diameter on the potential cut list.

"I'm worried that it will re-open that Pandora's box, back to where we either file a lawsuit or see logging of all the old-growth adjacent to the park," he said. "This is going back to a model that wasn't working for anybody."

Timber groups say the cut is primarily thinning and invisible from Crater Lake's rim. It would both improve tree health in the crowded forests and support southern Oregon mills desperate for more wood, said Dave Schott, executive vice president of the Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association.

Annual growth in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is outpacing the annual cut by at least 10 times, Schott said. And the logging would fall in so-called "matrix lands" designated for more logging under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, which was adopted after the northern spotted owl came under the Endangered Species Act.

The Bybee proposal "plays right into what (environmental groups) have been asking for," Schott said. "It's not like they're going to cut down every old, big tree there is. Nobody in the agencies is proposing big clear cuts anymore."

GS.41TIMB127-02.jpgView full size 
Bybee would produce up to 45 million board feet of new timber from 3,600 acres of forest in the High Cascades Ranger District, mostly logged by tractor or other ground-based equipment, and include up to 13 miles of new roads.

The logging will increase fire, insect and disease resistance, the Forest Service says, increase tree diversity and boost the vigor of the remaining trees.

National forests in southern Oregon's relatively dry section of the Cascades are getting overcrowded, Schott said, with more trees competing for water and nutrients.

"We have more and more stems and weaker and weaker forests," he said.

The Forest Service says clear cuts would be limited to three-quarter acre patches that "would blend with the vegetation in Crater Lake National Park," which has openings from past wildfires and other natural processes. In the long run, the service says, it will create more natural appearing stands adjacent to the park.

The Forest Service also notes loggers will not enter old-growth forests as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan. That definition includes roughly 200-year-old trees, lots of species, large snags and heavy accumulations of large logs on the ground.

Environmental groups see that as doublespeak.

Planned thinning and so-called "overstory removal" to free up the forest undergrowth won't distinguish between older and younger trees, said Charlie Fisher, a field organizer with Environment Oregon.

"We're trying to prevent piece-by-piece destruction of some of the last remaining old growth," Fisher said.

Environmental groups also argue that ground-based logging will damage already vulnerable soil in the headwaters of the Rogue River, increasing sediment runoff that muddies streams. And the Forest Service hasn't disclosed the precise locations of new roads, making its assessment of environmental impacts incomplete.

The service could reduce fire and cut insects and disease by concentrating on thinning white fir, a shade tolerant species that can help fuel fires, following up with prescribed burns, Sexton said.

Environmental groups have also pitched a new, 500,000-acre federal wilderness in and around the park to improve habitat for species such as Roosevelt elk, black bear and bald eagles. Logging and road building could jeopardize that proposal, they say.

Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands have also challenged the proposed D-Bug sale north of the park, which includes 16 million board feet and nearly four miles of temporary roads.

The public comment period on the environmental assessment for the Bybee sale ends Thursday. The Forest Service can pick one of the logging options laid out in the assessment or choose to do a more exhaustive environmental impact statement.
-- Scott Learn; Twitter: @slearn1.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Coquelle Trails: Scientific Transparency & Public Lands Management

Coquelle Trails: Scientific Transparency & Public Lands Management



"Volunteers On the March" (Glisan 1874: 293)
Presented to the Alsea Watershed Council
Fall Creek Fish Hatchery, Alsea, Oregon
February 21, 2013

Citation: Zybach, Bob 2013. "Coquelle Trails: Scientific Transparency & Public Lands Management," Presented to Alsea Watershed Council, Fall Creek Fish Hatchery, Alsea, Oregon, February 21, 2013: 44 slides.
PDF_3.3_MB
PPT_69_MB

The following summary of this talk was prepared as a blog post at A New Century of Forest Planning (https://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/coquelle-trails-scientific-transparency-public-lands-management/), to further broaden the discussion:

I originally gave this 60-minute talk to a meeting of the Alsea Watershed Council, my "home group,” where I have been giving presentations every few years since they first formed in the 1980s. The audience was a little smaller than usual, but all of the old-timers were there and Elmer Ostling’s wife had baked delicious cinnamon rolls for everyone.

The theme of my talk was to discuss scientific and political “transparency” in this age of Internet communications – and to use the recently completed website report, Oregon Websites and Watershed Project’s (ORWW) “Coquelle Trails,” as a model and framework for the discussion.The Coquelle Trails project included more than 1,400,000-acres in southwest Oregon, including sizable portions of BLM and USFS lands and hundreds of thousands of acres of marbled murrelet, spotted owl, coho, California condor, wolf, and elk habitat. PowerPoint and PDF versions of the presentation have been put online here:


The original 2-page Press Release for Coquelle Trails was used as a handout. The online version of the handout can be found here:


The discussion was arranged in four parts: 1) a proposed definition of “scientific and political transparency” -- at least as it should apply to taxpayer-funded research -- for the 21st century; 2) a demonstration of how inexpensive and easy it is to produce baseline data in modern digital formats, by using the Coquelle Trails’ predictive map construction and field verification methodology as an illustration; 3) a brief overview of how the Coquelle Trails’ historical datasets and current findings were formatted for Internet access by using the same basic standards developed by ORWW with Siletz School 2nd-Grade students 15 years ago; and 4) several conclusions regarding current opportunities and needs to create better trust and transparency between federal land management agencies and local communities via enhanced research methods and internet communications.

After a brief introduction and background regarding the focus of my talk and the reference materials we would be using, we began with a proposed definition for “Scientific (& Political) Transparency: 2013,” which was also outlined in four parts:

1. Plain English
         Acronyms + Jargon + Latin + Metrics x Statistics = Total Obfuscation
                           Doug Fir vs. Doug-fir vs. PsMe
                           TMDL vs. turbidity vs. muddy water

2. Research Methodology
         A. All taxpayer-funded work is documented.
         B. All documentation is made readily available via public websites.
         C. Most work is subject to Independent Peer Review.
         D. All peer reviews and resulting discussions are made publicly available.

3. Direct Access to all taxpayer-funded research, meetings, reports, correspondence, political decisions, etc.

4. Stable, well-designed (dependable, comprehensive & “easy to use”) Websites: ORWW Coquelle Trails as a model.
The opening discussion of Plain English was illustrated with a philosophical approach as to how Latin had been used to create distance between the Messengers of God and the illiterate masses in the Middle Ages, and how that process was still being used today – via government acronyms, professional jargon, metrics, and obscure statistics (and Latin) – to create distance between government agencies and the public; between and within the agencies themselves; and even between different generations of scientists within the same disciplines.

I used personal examples of the “evolution” of Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia) to Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) to PsMe (“Piz-Me” -- really) in the agencies and classrooms during the past 60 years – while everyone in town and at the sawmills still continue to call it “Doug Fir.” The similar history of TMDL – and why that acronym is not a good fit to discuss with current grade school and high school students, or voters or taxpayers – was another example. Same with metrics: the USFS and BLM are US agencies. Our standard of measure, commonly and legally used by all US citizens, is the English system (chains, links, feet, miles, and acres) — why then do agency personnel try and talk and write in terms of hectares and kilometers in official reports and public presentations (rhetorical question)?

The second part of the discussion involved a series of slides showing how traditional archival research methods and modern technology were used, and could be clearly described, during the Coquelle Trails project to achieve intended results. This was, essentially, a summary of the methodology as described and illustrated by the online report itself:

www.ORWW.org/Coquelle_Trails/Methodology/

Part three of the discussion used a series of slides showing how ORWW has continued to use the same methods and formats developed with Siletz 2nd-Graders in 1998 to present Coquelle Trails research datasets, findings, and conclusions to the present day. 

It was also noted that anyone in the world using a pre-Google and pre-Yahoo! search engine in 1998 -- we used Alta Vista mostly -- would typically get the following Siletz webpage as one of the top three to five listings when doing a general search for the words "salmon cycle." By contrast, almost all federal and state agencies and major universities were ranked lower, much lower, or (mostly) weren't even represented at all.


The point was made – pointedly – that government websites to the present time continue to be far less stable, far less comprehensive, and far more difficult to navigate than methods developed by grade-schoolers during the past century – during the very infancy of the Internet. Also, that the more accessible and reliable design was developed and has been expanded and maintained by a tiny non-profit in Philomath, Oregon, entirely funded by local residents, businesses, and organizations – and no federal dollars. And that those works have been continuously available and online for more than 16 years (compare to the life of an average government link or URL, which are rarely maintained more than a few years at most).

Which brought us to the Conclusions, also listed in four parts:

Conclusions: How Transparency Saves Money & Improves Decision Making

1. The 1976 Paperwork Reduction Act and the 2010 Plain Writing Act already require the use of Plain English by federal agencies. These acts simply need to be enforced.   

2. Modern technology makes automated scanning of documents and GPS-referenced digital photography increasingly cheap and easy. Citizens should insist on such documentation and direct access to all taxpayer-funded research, meetings, etc., affecting local regulations.

3. High-speed Internet communications and the recent proliferation of ipads and smart phones has made universal access to technical information possible, with few limitations to time and location.

4. Increased access to better information is believed to result in improved research, discussion, and decision-making. Stable, well-designed websites make such access possible for almost all citizens, including: students, teachers, scientists, politicians and public resource managers.

So that was my presentation. I would be very interested in other thoughts on this, particularly as expressed via the New Century blog forum (above). I think the current lack of transparency in government and in science (and maybe particularly in government-funded science) is doing a great and costly disservice to taxpaying citizens, our voters, and our students and teachers, all of whom deserve clear and complete answers to their questions and requests.

Modern technology and Internet communications have made sharing technical information more possible, much cheaper, and far easier than at any other time in history – so why does the government (and its scientists) continue to hide behind secret meetings, foreign languages and measurements, unavailable “findings,” clunky and outdated communications, never-ending acronyms, and other forms of deliberate obfuscation? That’s a rhetorical question with lots of answers, but the bottom line is that there is really no excuse for allowing this type of behavior to continue. It’s way too expensive, totally unnecessary, probably unethical, and genuinely counterproductive to most legitimate workings of government and of science. In my opinion. I’m interested in the thoughts of others.

More Presentations by Dr. Zybach: 1983 - 2003; 2004 - 2009; 2010 - 2013


Thursday, February 21, 2013

State forests look for financial answers

State forests look for financial answers



Mark  Hester, The Oregonian
By Mark Hester, The Oregonian 
on February 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, updated February 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Email
State Forester Doug Decker and Oregon Board of Forestry Chair Tom Imeson met with The Oregonian editorial board today to discuss issues facing state forests.

Decker and Imeson discussed the Department of Forestry's role in three areas: management of state forests, fire protection for forestlands
tom imeson.JPGView full sizeTom Imeson is chair of the Oregon Board of Forestry. 
and advocacy for Oregon in federal forest policy. But much of the discussion revolved around a common theme: money.

In short, Imeson and Decker said, the department needs to change its management approach to be economically viable. At the least, that means looking for new management strategies. At the most, and in the longer term, it could mean finding ways to "monetize" forest assets other than wood. One example would be trading carbon credits or other credits tied to the environment.

One possible change in management would be to zone forests for different uses -- wood, conservation or recreation, for example. 

Currently forest managers try to balance competing interest while managing the forest as a whole.
"We get push from both sides," Decker said. "We're looking for a scientifically based forest-management style that is economically viable," and achieves other desired outcomes, such as conservation.

The department is backing House Bill 2050 to shore up funding for fire protection in forests. The bill, among other ways, would change how financial responsibility for fire fighting is spread among the general fund, landowners and insurance.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Sens. Wyden, Merkley reintroduce wilderness protection bills

Sens. Wyden, Merkley reintroduce wilderness protection bills



The Associated Press
By The Associated Press 
on February 14, 2013 at 7:16 PM, updated February 14, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Email

Oregon.Caves.JPGView full sizeA ranger shines his flashlight and leads the way through The Oregon Caves National Monument. At left is the Styx, an underground river. 
GRANTS PASS -- Longstanding proposals to protect rivers and forests in Oregon as wilderness areas were reintroduced in Congress on Thursday by Oregon's two senators.

Democratic Sens. Ron Wydenand Jeff Merkley co-sponsored the proposals.

Wyden said that as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee he hopes to break the gridlock that has held them up in the past.

"These areas provide habitats to countless species of plants and animals, economic benefits to surrounding communities and recreational opportunities for Oregonians and visitors throughout the nation," Wyden said in a statement.

Merkley said in a statement the bills were an important step toward protecting treasured terrain so surrounding areas have healthy salmon runs, recreation and tourism for their local economies.

The measures face an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled House, where Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., has been working on legislation to increase logging in national forests.

"Chairman Hastings considers wilderness bills on an individual basis, but is concerned about the restrictions they place on public access to public lands," said committee aide Spencer Pederson said.

Steve Pedery, conservation director for the environmental group Oregon Wild, said he was confident Wyden would be able to broker a public lands deal with Republicans interested in energy development that would result in adding the areas to the nation's wilderness areas, as he has done in the past.

The bills would expand the Oregon Caves National Monument and Wild Rogue Wilderness in southwestern Oregon, create new wilderness along the John Day River in Central Oregon, and create the Devil's Staircase Wilderness to protect old growth forest in the Coast Range on the Siuslaw National Forest. They also would elevate Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protections for the Chetco River in southwestern Oregon, and the Molalla River south of Portland.

Pedery said wilderness measures take a long time to build enough support to gain approval by Congress. He said the Devil's Staircase proposal goes back 30 years.

The bills cover areas similar to those that would be protected as wilderness in a proposal to increase federal logging revenues for Oregon timber counties.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., a co-sponsor of the timber counties proposal, urged Wyden to hold a Senate hearing on the issue, which could take up the wilderness areas as well.
-- The Associated Press

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Reps. DeFazio, Walden, Schrader urge Congress to get involved in finding a replacement for county payments

Reps. DeFazio, Walden, Schrader urge Congress to get involved in finding a replacement for county payments



Charles Pope, The Oregonian
By Charles Pope, The Oregonian 
on February 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM, updated February 13, 2013 at 5:49 PM
Email
Curry_County_-_Gold_Beach.jpgView full sizeCurry County is one of the rural areas that is desperate for Congress to approve a permanent replacement for county payments. Three Oregon lawmakers on Wednesday asked for hearings on possible plans. 
WASHINGTON - Moving to breathe life into a rescue plan for rural Oregon, Reps. Peter DeFazioGreg Walden andKurt Schrader urged the chairmen of two key committees - including Sen. Ron Wyden - to hold hearings on proposals for turning millions of federal acres into a long-term revenue source for cash-strapped counties.

The letter to Wyden, a Democrat who chairs theSenate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and his Republican counterpart in the House, Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, comes a week after a task force appointed by Gov. John Kitzhaber failed to reach consensus for how best to handle 2.6 million acres of federal forestland in Western Oregon known as the O&C lands.

That failure has shifted focus to Washington as the three lawmakers, Kitzhaber and county officials worry that time may already be running short.

And with Congress consumed by other issues, DeFazio said in an interview it's important begin educating lawmakers now. If he and others can build support, a rescue "could pass Congress in less than 24 hours," DeFazio said. "But when Congress isn't in the mood it can take more than the rest of my life to pass something."

Peter DeFazioCongress needs to start moving, DeFazio says. 
"In order to keep the process moving forward, we respectfully ask that you hold an oversight hearing todiscuss long-term solutions for the O&C Lands –including our bipartisan proposal and the governor’s report," the letter to Wyden said.

It added: "The time is ripe for a substantive hearing and open discussion about solutions."

DeFazio said in an interview that oversight hearings would educate lawmakers and hopefully build momentum for the congressional action that's required for any plan to come into reality. Kitzhaber, who was in town after attending the State of the Union, told DeFazio he would testify if asked.

"We are making the request," DeFazio said, adding, "we have a sense of urgency."
The task, however, has become more complicated because the task force could not unify around a single idea.

The letter concedes that point but insists there is still broad agreement on many aspects of the plan.

"While the panel did not come to a consensus, the governor recently released a substantive 94-page report that outlines possible management solutions and outcomes," the letter says.

"We believe both our bipartisan proposal and the governor’s O&C Lands Report are largely consistent with the 'Principles for an O&C Solution' your office released in December," the letter to Wyden says. "We also remain optimistic that a long-term management solution exists and that together we can craft responsible, bipartisan legislation that provides certainty to all constituencies."

The panel deadlocked on some key points, including the amount of logging and the degree of streamside protection.

Kitzhaber added a sweetener, pledging $10 million a year for 10 years toward voluntary private land conservation if a deal is reached.

County and timber representatives on the panel favored plans that would increase logging to more than 500 million board feet a year. They would generate more than $100 million dollars in annual county revenues, up from $13 million now.

“It’s time for action,” DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader said in a joint statement.  “We think hearings on realistic, long-term solutions for the statutorily-unique O&C Lands that would create jobs and provide certainty to counties in both the House and Senate would be productive next steps.”

Despite the important to his home state, Wyden offered a measured response, suggesting that the most difficult issues need to be sorted out at the state level before Congress can take action.
Ron_Wyden.jpgView full sizeWyden says a deal on O&C lands "is a priority" but an agreement must balance economic and environmental interests. 

"I’m using my new position as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to make O&C lands a priority in the Senate. But for legislation to have a chance to pass, any solution must include stable funding for counties, sustainable timber harvests, strong environmental protection and more efficient management, as I laid out in my principles last year," he said.
Pressure is already increasing on the counties even though funding through the county payments program was extended for this year. But the financial lifeline to many of Oregon's rural counties is in jeopardy because it's part of automatic spending cuts known as "the sequester." Those across the board cuts, totaling $85 billion, will occur March 1 unless Congress intervenes.

"To make matters worse, we recently learned that a portion of the final payments is being withheld from the O&C counties in anticipation of the budget sequestration threatening additional cuts to vital services like law enforcement and health care," the letter warns.

"Some counties in western Oregon are on the brink of bankruptcy and are considering insolvency, or turning over their responsibilities to the state. … Uncertainty of federal funding is devastating to counties and must be replaced with jobs and economic growth.  We know you are intimately familiar with these problems," the lawmakers write.

-- Charles Pope

and
-- Scott Learn