New Report Questions Sen Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act"

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:24:02 AM MST

Here's a snip from the report's conclusion (emphasis added):

...[T]here are significant problems to the place-based legislative approach to national forest management.  To begin with, the historical record of place-based forest law does not lend confidence to the approach in principle.  By most accounts, cases like the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Act have engendered more conflict and problems than the legislation has resolved.   This is mostly because these site-specific laws must somehow be paid for and then reconciled with the cumulative body of environmental laws that govern the national forests.  

These problems are not insurmountable, but Congress and the USFS should oppose forest-specific legislation until a number of more fundamental and systematic concerns are addressed.  Most important are the questions of how these laws would fit into the preexisting statutory/planning framework and how they would  be financed.  

If replicated more broadly, place-based legislation would disunify the National Forest System and create a number of problematic precedents.  Chief among these are legislated timber treatment mandates that would set the stage for future Congressional abuse.  If enacted into law, these mandates would also have the unintended consequence of jeopardizing fragile agreements and negotiations going on elsewhere; as some timber interests would certainly use this precedent as new leverage in their bargaining positions.  As one Congressional Staffer involved in a place-based negotiation says, if Senator Tester's timber supply mandate  gets through the gate, then he expects a similar sort of demand being made by the timber interests at his table.

Update on Sen Tester's FJRA from NewWest

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 09:51:01 AM MST

Schneider writes:

"It could be different this time around, but right now, it looks like another loss for Montana.

It all depends on Senator Jon Tester's willingness to change course on his beleaguered Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S. 1470. Tester's bill has had a hearing before the same subcommittee, back on December 17, but the bill has yet to be reported out of committee because of major disagreement among subcommittee members on parts of the bill. The subcommittee won't report it out onto the floor in its present form, so it can't get in an omnibus bill, which means it has no chance of becoming law.

It's complicated, but in short, other subcommittee members and the U.S. Forest Service don't like Tester's mandated logging provisions, nor his special intrusions on the Wilderness Act of 1964 by allowing ATVs and helicopters in certain designated Wilderness areas. The committee suggested removing these provisions from S. 1470, but Tester refused."

Sure looks like Senator Tester and the collaborators should have taken more seriously the substantive concerns expressed for over a year now from many public lands conservation organizations in Montana and around the country, as well as from the Forest Service, Obama Administration, ENR Committee and a host of retired Forest Service chiefs and officials.

Winners and losers of the draft Forest bill's opaque transparency

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 07:36:04 AM MST

Winner: John Adams. In tracking down the draft bill, Adams wrote an extremely fair post about transparency, Jon Tester, and the legislative process in the US Senate.

Did Jon's staff egregiously mislead Adams' about the existence of a draft bill? Yes. Did members of the collaborative group working on the bill see the draft? Yes. Did Jon Tester promise more transparency than we've received? Yes. But do US Senate committees typically share draft legislation with the public? No. And is the bill's semi-transparent collaborative legislative-writing process typical for Washington DC? No.

What we've got is a quasi-public process that's more open than the inside-the-Beltway gang is used to, and much less open than Montanans want. Is it Tester's fault? No. It wasn't his draft, and the other members of the committee didn't make the transparency pledges that Tester did. (Tester promised to make his changes public.) If there's fault to be put on Tester, it's that his rhetoric didn't match reality. An up-front explanation and tempering of expectations at the beginning of the process would have served him well.

Loser: Jon Tester. Not for falling short of his rhetoric, but for opposing the removal of mandated logging language from the draft:

A "discussion draft" of Tester's S. 1470 legislation started circulating last week among critics of the bill. This version did not have the requirement to log at least 10,000 acres a year in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai national forests, or the one-year limitation on U.S. Forest Service environmental reviews. It also deleted language from the wilderness sections that would have allowed military helicopter training and off-road vehicle use for livestock herding.

For his part, Tester said this week that he would not accept removing the logging mandate.

"There are a number of changes folks would like to see made to S. 1470," Tester said. "Some will be implemented, all will be considered. Make no mistake, if the timber mandates are not part of the deal, I'll pull the plug on the whole thing."

The mandate makes no sense. Sure, I get why they put it in - it's probably an end run around lawsuits against logging ventures on public lands. But...a mandate doesn't change the legal conditions around the lawsuits, and doesn't account for dropping timber prices - if the bottom falls out of the timber market...and no one wants to cut...then what?

I'm no free-market maven, but it seems...irrational...to force supply on a market without any demand.

If the timber industry wants to log public lands, they should probably work together with environmental groups to make sure they're following the law and pay attention to environmental concerns. Shoving timber on the market seems a pretty poor "compromise."

Winner: The public. Tester's forest bill has been more transparent than most, and the controversies around the draft only make the issue keener and puts more pressure on Tester to follow through on his promises of openness. Hopefully, it'll put some pressure on the Senate to make its committee-work more open. But don't hold your breath.

Losers: Conservatives. Until Dennis Rehberg starts releasing drafts of bills discussed in the House Appropriations committee, I think we can all agree that conservatives' criticism of Tester's efforts to make his committee-work open and transparent is clearly hypocritical.

New Draft of Tester Bill Put Together by Senate Committee: Will Sen Tester Let the Public See It?

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 07:07:34 AM MST

Since the Committee's draft includes significant new language, we believe it's in the best interest of all Montanans and Americans for Senator Tester to make a copy of the Committee's draft available for public review and input.  This step will ensure transparency and give all members of the public an equal opportunity to review the new draft language.

The Committee's new draft drops the controversial mandated logging levels on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests and drops Senator Tester's 12-month timeline for environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, which the head of the Forest Service called "flawed and are legally vulnerable" during last December's Senate hearing.

The Committee's new draft also adds language requiring that any project carried out under the bill must maintain old growth forests and retain large trees, while focus any hazardous fuel reduction efforts on small diameter trees.

The Committee's draft drops several of the controversial Wilderness provisions, including those allowing helicopter landings for military training exercises and herding livestock with ATVs in Wilderness, but other provisions that compromise the integrity of the proposed Wildernesses remain in the new draft.

Earthjustice to Sen Tester: "We have serious concerns about certain provisions of S. 1470"

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 05:15:24 AM MST

April 7, 2010

The Honorable Jon Tester
United States Senate
724 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2603

Dear Senator Tester:

On behalf of Earthjustice, we wish to comment on some key provisions of S. 1470, The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. Earthjustice supports watershed restoration and protection of wilderness-quality lands in Montana and elsewhere.  Earthjustice also recognizes the work of many people, especially you and your staff, in drafting S. 1470.  However, we have serious concerns about certain provisions of S. 1470 that we urge you to address during any further consideration of the bill by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  Our concerns involve the bill's mandate for mechanical treatment of timber on 70,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and 30,000 acres in the Three Rivers Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest, as well as its constraints on compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Earthjustice is the nation's largest non -profit environmental law firm. Since our founding in 1971, we have provided legal representation at no cost to over 700 clients nationwide to protect our air, water, public lands, wildlife, and public health. Our Northern Rockies Office is located in Bozeman, Montana, where we have represented state, regional, and national environmental organizations in many cases to protect wildlife and public lands in Montana and the northern Rockies since 1993.

Full Letter Here

Additional information:
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act vs. The Wilderness Act: Analysis by Wilderness Watch - click here.
FJRA Comments from Members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign - click here.

Brandborg: Tester Logging Bill Threatens Our National Forests

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 07:42:30 AM MST

Tester Logging Bill Threatens Our National Forests
By Stewart M. Brandborg

I am a fourth-generation Montanan who grew up in a U.S. Forest Service family.  Guy Brandborg, my father, served as Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest from 1935 to 1955.  I still fondly remember Gifford Pinchot, during one of his last western trips, visiting my father in front of our fireplace.  And, I still marvel at Bob Marshall's one-day hike from White Cap Creek on the Selway River up and over the Bitterroot Divide down Boulder Creek in time to join my family around the dining room table for supper.

After earning my Masters degree in Forestry and Wildlife Management in 1951, I worked over 12 years as a wildlife biologist with the Forest Service and state wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho.

I was associated over 20 years with The Wilderness Society, including serving as its executive director from 1964 to 1976.  In these years, I was privileged to advocate for the protection of our public lands legacy, presenting the case for wildland preservation across the nation.  During my tenure, the U.S. Congress passed landmark public lands legislation, including the Wilderness Act of 1964, and laid the groundwork for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

For 70 years now, I have been involved with public lands issues.  With this background, it is with deep personal concern that I share serious reservations about Sen. Jon Tester's Logging and Recreation Bill, S. 1470.

Despite the best intentions of Senator Tester, this ill-advised measure, as written, poses a serious threat to our National Forests and other publicly-owned lands. Specifically, the logging mandated by S. 1470 is unprecedented and represents an unscientific override of current forest planning, leading the head of the Forests Service to tell the Senate Committee at last December's hearing that the logging levels in S. 1470 are unachievable and unsustainable.

I also agree with the Forest Service that unfunded mandates in this bill would result in other National Forests in Montana and the region having their funds raided to support excessive logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge.  The Forest Service described this serious concern as "balkanization" of our national forest system.

The Tester bill is described by supporters as the product of collaborative effort that brought all stakeholders together in its drafting.  In fact, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge portion of the bill was originally conceived and contrived by a few logging mills and a few conservation groups.

The initial deliberations of the Beaverhead Partnership excluded major players - the US Forest service, local county governments, watershed and irrigation interests, local and state land, wildlife, and wilderness interests, and a broad segment of other user groups - who have concern for the long-term protection of our National Forests.

Back in September, I, with a delegation including scientists and a retired Forest Service ranger, met with Senator Tester's staff in an attempt to improve the bill. While we appreciated the meeting, our suggestions and concerns have been ignored.  Unfortunately, this appears to be typical treatment of those concerned about S. 1470. If you support the bill, you are welcomed into the collaboration. If you have concerns with the bill, too bad. This is not how America's public lands should be managed.

If Congress were to endorse Senator Tester's bill as written, over 100 years of federal resource protection laws, set in place through the bipartisan actions of 50 Congresses, could be overridden by any interest group that gains the ear of any Congressman or Senator. We need not open this Pandora's Box of special loopholes and subsidies for a handful of corporations.  We need not forsake our remaining public wild lands heritage.

There are plenty of needed, well-paying forest jobs in road reclamation, watershed restoration and replanting with native species.  These forest restoration jobs promote steady flows of pure water for improved wildlife habitat, better fishing and hunting, irrigation and community water supplies and continued sustainable harvests from our fiber producing lands.  Fuels reduction projects within community protection zones will, based upon best available science, most efficiently and effectively protect homes and lives while providing even more jobs.

In years past, Congress responded to the voice of the American people and protected our public lands legacy from raids by special interest groups.  I hope we can stop Senator Tester from breaking up America's National Forest system for local commercial interests.

Stewart M. Brandborg lives in the Bitterroot Valley with his wife, Anna Vee.  In 2001 he received the Robert Marshall Award, - The Wilderness Society's highest honor - for his notable influence on American's Wilderness legacy.

Report: Battling forest beetles may be counter-productive

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:18:07 AM MST

DENVER - Forest ecologists warned leaders today that plans to log beetle-killed trees in remote backcountry, instead of implementing fuel reduction efforts directly adjacent to communities, will not make people safe and will squander scarce tax dollars. 

A new scientific report released today suggests that bark beetle outbreaks will not lead to greater fire risk, and that tree thinning and logging is not likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics of bark beetle. The report's findings apply to millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests across North America. 

The report also indicates that tree cutting in designated roadless areas protected under the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not likely keep communities safe from wildfire, according to "Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives." The report is based on years of field research and a comprehensive scientific literature review and is available online at http://nccsp.org.

Report authors also suggest that the limited funds available to mitigate fire risk for vulnerable communities would be most effective if used to create defensible space around homes, including using flame retardant building materials and removing brush and trees within several hundred feet of homes. 

Additionally, any building of temporary or permanent roads in roadless areas to combat beetle outbreaks could have substantial "short- and long-term ecological costs," the report's authors found. Those costs could include damage to wildlife and water, increased wildfire risk and the introduction of invasive species. 
 
The National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, an Ashland, Ore.,-based nonprofit organization, is releasing the report. Its authors include professors at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo., and Clark University in Worcester, Mass., along with experts at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Ore., and the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy.

The report's release comes as the West continues to face the worst outbreak of beetles in centuries. In recent years, bark beetle outbreaks have killed millions of acres of lodgepole pines throughout the West with Colorado at the epicenter. 
 
"Drought and high temperature are likely the overriding factors behind the current bark beetle epidemic in the western United States," said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and lead author of the report. "Because logging and thinning cannot effectively alleviate the overriding effects of climate, it will do little or nothing to control these outbreaks."
 
Insect outbreaks and fires are a natural part of the ecology of western forests. And the report found no causal link between insect outbreaks and the incidence of wildfires. It also suggests that insect outbreaks in backcountry forests and roadless areas are unlikely to heighten fire risk in adjacent communities. 
 
"Fires in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests, such as those found in Colorado, are primarily determined by weather conditions," said Dominik Kulakowski, a professor of Geography and Biology at Clark University. "The best available science indicates that outbreaks of bark beetles in these forests have little or no effect on fire risk, and may actually reduce it in certain cases." 
 
The report also suggests, "tree-cutting is not likely to control ongoing bark beetle outbreaks." Nor will it be "likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics," according to the report.

The report's findings come as Colorado officials move to finalize a plan to be considered by the U.S. Forest Service that would exempt the state from the 2001 national rule. The Colorado plan, while protecting some roadless areas, would allow new road construction and timber-cutting to battle beetles and to reduce fire-risk from insect infected trees.

Colorado is one of two states that has pursued a state-based approach to protect its roadless areas. That is an option the Bush administration created in the wake of its rollback of the 2001 roadless rule, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year. The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a separate challenge of the 2001 rule. 

According to report authors, the 2001 national rule allows sufficient flexibility to protect roadless backcountry while allowing local land managers to address public health and safety concerns, including fire. 
 
"The science is clear. Unless preventive measures are aimed at creating defensible space around homes, the federal government will be shoveling taxpayer money down a black hole," said Dominick DellaSala, a report author and president and chief scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. "Logging in the backcountry will do little to prevent insect infestations or reduce fire risks, and it will not solve Colorado's concerns over dying trees. 
 
"Colorado's pristine roadless areas are best protected for their clean water and unbridled fish and wildlife recreational opportunities," DellaSala said.

Sen Tester: Request for Jobs Figures for FJRA

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 09:17:37 AM MST

Senator Tester:

I caught your guest column on the FJRA here:
http://missoulian.com/news/opi...

Are you aware that we're in the middle of the biggest economic crisis/recession that our country has seen in 70 years?

Are you aware, Senator Tester, that demand for lumber in America is down 55% and housing starts in America are down 70%? Do you know that because of the economic crisis, lumber mills in places like Main, North Carolina, New York, etc, - where nearly all the timberlands are privately owned - have also closed?

I ask these questions in all sincerity because your guest column here makes no mention of these profound economic realities facing the logging industry and our nation.

Rather, it seems obvious that in order to garner more support for your bill that you're willing to just blame the timber industry's tough times on national forest policy.

Doesn't this seem pretty disingenuous to you, especially considering the hard to ignore economic realities? I mean, seriously, how can you lament the timber industry's tough times with zero mention that lumber demand is down 55% and housing starts are down 70%? Are these not important factors?

Has anyone in your office figured out just how many jobs your logging bill will "create or save?" Seems like that figure should made public, especially if you are going around making these general/generic jobs claims.

Fact is, right now the Forest Service has more timber volume under contract in Montana and our region (300 million board feet) than at any point in the past decade.

That's right, while some people claim we need the FJRA because no logging is able to happen on Forest Service lands, the fact of the matter is that right now the logging industry has enough national forest timber volume under contract to fill 60,000 log trucks lined up end-to-end for 500 miles. All this national forest timber (already under contract to logging outfits) could be logged today or tomorrow or next week.

But with little demand for lumber, the logging companies aren't cutting much of what they already have under contract.

Given this reality Senator Tester, just how will mandating even more logging help? Please honestly answer these questions Senator Tester.

Thanks.
 
Sincerely,
Matthew Koehler
WildWest Institute
Missoula, MT

Tester Bill Comments from Members of Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:15:30 AM MST

The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, forest restoration and the sound long-term management of America's public lands legacy.   Our coalition includes 4th and 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers,  wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management  officials, small-business owners, scientists, educators, craftspersons, and community leaders.

Coalition Launches New Website: Clear Look at Sen. Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:15:45 AM MST

MISSOULA, MT - Today, a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation, and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy, launched a new website dedicated to a detailed examination of Senator Jon Tester's S. 1470, the "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act."

The growing coalition includes conservation groups from Montana and throughout the country, as well as citizens who are small-business owners, scientists, educators and teachers, health care practitioners, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials, ranchers and farmers, craftspersons, and community leaders  - all stakeholders committed to America's public wildlands legacy.

At http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com you will find:

* Detailed, Line-By-Line Analysis of S. 1470
* Keeping it Wild! In Defense of America's Public Wildlands
* Contact info for citizens to send testimony to the US Senate's Natural Resources Committee, which will be holding a Dec 17th hearing on S. 1470.
* A citizen petition
* Commentary and perspective on S.1470 from experts

# # #

Missoulian: Recession rattles timber industry to its core

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 08:27:03 AM MST

Here are some quick snips (emphasis mine):

"The Western Wood Products Association estimates that 45 percent of all lumber goes to new home construction. But new home starts have been more than halved since reaching a high of more than 2 million in 2005. Since that year, the nation's demand for lumber has dropped 55 percent, the steepest decline in industry history"...

"National demand for lumber, which pegged 64.3 billion board feet in 2005, is predicted to fall below 30 billion board feet this year, with the amount of lumber used to build new homes dropping from 28 billion board feet to about 5 billion board feet. Making matters worse is the fact that log prices have not fallen at the same rate, meaning mills are paying more for raw materials while selling product for less."

It's interesting to note that all the economic reality contained in this article has been systematically ignored by Senator Jon Tester, his staff and those three or four conservation groups who actually support Tester's Mandated Logging Bill.

Just imagine, after decades and decades of over-consumption and over-development (which have caused a host of environmental and social problems in our country) we've come to a point in the public lands forest/wilderness movement where groups such as Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Montana Trout Unlimited are actually looking to use their political connections to mandate more logging on public lands, despite the steepest decline in demand for lumber in our nation's history.

With demand for lumber, excess packaging and disposable paper products (thankfully) in such a steep decline (and not expected to rebound anytime soon) wouldn't sensible conservationists and progressives, if anything, advocate for less public lands logging at this very important point in our nation's history?