Update on Sen Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

by: Matthew Koehler

Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:32:32 AM MST

This week, Senator Tester and his staff have acknowledged they are working behind the scenes in this lame-duck session of Congress to attach his mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, to a completely unrelated $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, which is a 'must-pass' bill required to fund the US Government through September 2011.

This is despite the fact that the FJRA never made it out of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, never made it to the floor of the US Senate and never was introduced in the US House.

Many Montana's from all walks of life still have serious, substantive concerns with the FJRA.

It's unfortunate that Senator Tester is pursuing such a questionable, and some might say underhanded, tactic to pass this bill.  Back in 2006, didn't state Senator Tester campaign against Senator Burns for using just these types of questionable, undemocratic tactics?

Don't forget that this past summer Senator Tester had his chance to have the FJRA approved by the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That version would have designated over 660,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness and would have moved some important watershed and restoration work forward.

However, Senator Tester blew that chance because he and four timber mills were completely unwilling to compromise on the mandated logging provisions and allowing motors within Wilderness.

Amazingly, to date, the Great Falls Tribune is the only newspaper in the state which feels this is a newsworthy, important development to let Montanans know about.

TAKE ACTION: Please take a moment to contact Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and ask him to NOT include Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) in the Senate's completely unrelated $1.2 Trillion omnibus spending bill.  Please call  (202) 224-3934 or send an email via  http://inouye.senate.gov/Contact/ContactDKI.cfm.

Also, please contact Senator Tester and let him know that you strongly disapprove of his FJRA, as written, and his underhanded tactics to get it passed.  The fact is that FJRA never made it out of the Senate ENR Committee, never made it to the floor of the Senate and was never even introduced in the US House.  Secretly attaching it to an unrelated, must-pass $1.2 Trillion spending bill is disgraceful.   Please call (202) 224-2644 or send an email via: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/

Good News for Protecting and Recovering Bull Trout and their Habitat

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 09:27:09 AM MST

According to the AP:

The final rule issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service represented a major expansion of the streams, lakes and reservoirs protected as critical habitat for the fish, primarily on federal lands in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada, and a reversal of Bush administration policy on endangered species.

The new ruling protects 19,000 miles of streams, which is five times more than the 2005 rule, and 490,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, which is more than three times greater than previously ordered. But the 754 miles of marine shoreline in Washington state was a reduction to make room for U.S. Navy testing grounds.

Faced with a lawsuit, Fish and Wildlife agreed last year to revise the 2005 critical habitat designation after an inspector general's report found it was among dozens of decisions improperly interfered with by former deputy assistant secretary of Interior Julie MacDonald, who resigned in 2007.

Montanans, and others, who value native fish and their habitat should celebrate this important critical habitat designation for bull trout. Much of the credit goes to two Montana-based organizations: Friends of the Wild Swan (sorry, no website) and Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  A chronology of the issue from 1985 to 2009 is available here.

You can bet the lobbyists and political supporters of the timber, mining and grazing industry will blast this designation of critical habitat for the threatened bull trout. After all, now logging, mining, grazing and oil and gas development projects on public lands will now have to more fully take bull trout, their habitat and their recovery, into account.

In the coming days and weeks, it will also certainly be interesting to see if Montana Trout Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation and the Montana Wilderness Association support and celebrate the Obama Administration/USFWS's new bull trout critical habitat designations...or if these "Tester bill collaborators" will stand with their new friends in the timber industry in opposition to these new rules. Stay tuned....

UM Study Finds Logged Forests More Prone To Severe Wildfires

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:17:40 AM MST

Below is a copy of the press release sent out by the University of Montana. Click here to download the entire study.

MISSOULA - Historically logged forest sites are denser and potentially more prone to severe wildfires and insect outbreaks than unlogged, fire-excluded forests and should be considered a high priority for fuel-reduction treatments, according to a new University of Montana study.

Anna Sala and Cameron Naficy, the lead researchers in the study, published an article on these findings in the most recent issue of the journal Ecological Applications. Sala is a professor in UM's Division of Biological Sciences, and Naficy graduated with a master's degree from UM in 2008.

Sala and Naficy's study compared logged, fire-excluded sites to unlogged, fire-excluded sites in forests mainly consisting of ponderosa pines. The study covered a broad region spanning the Continental Divide of the Northern Rockies, from central Montana to central Idaho.

The findings contradict much of the conventional wisdom defining current U.S. forest policy, which assumes that increases in forest density, which in turn increase the susceptibility to severe wildfires or insect outbreaks, are primarily caused by fire suppression.

"This is an important finding because it highlights that vegetation management can result in long-lasting changes to forests that are likely to affect how large-scale disturbances, such as wildfires or insect outbreaks, play out on the landscape well into the future," Naficy said.

"Furthermore, it shows that previously harvested and unharvested forests have very different restoration needs and fire hazard potential," Sala said. "This recognition should go a long way in helping land managers to prioritize restoration and fuel-reduction efforts where they are most likely to be successful."

For more information, call Sala at 406-243-6009, e-mail sala@mso.umt.edu or e-mail Naficy at cameron.naficy@colorado.edu .

Naficy, Cameron, Anna Sala, Eric G. Keeling, Jon Graham, and Thomas H. DeLuca. 2010. Interactive effects of historical logging and fire exclusion on ponderosa pine forest structure in the northern Rockies. Ecological Applications 20:1851-1864. [doi:10.1890/09-0217.1]

Increased forest density resulting from decades of fire exclusion is often perceived as the leading cause of historically aberrant, severe, contemporary wildfires and insect outbreaks documented in some fire-prone forests of the western United States. Based on this notion, current U.S. forest policy directs managers to reduce stand density and restore historical conditions in fire-excluded forests to help minimize high-severity disturbances. Historical logging, however, has also caused widespread change in forest vegetation conditions, but its long-term effects on vegetation structure and composition have never been adequately quantified. We document that fire-excluded ponderosa pine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains logged prior to 1960 have much higher average stand density, greater homogeneity of stand structure, more standing dead trees and increased abundance of fire-intolerant trees than paired fire-excluded, unlogged counterparts. Notably, the magnitude of the interactive effect of fire exclusion and historical logging substantially exceeds the effects of fire exclusion alone. These differences suggest that historically logged sites are more prone to severe wildfires and insect outbreaks than unlogged, fire-excluded forests and should be considered a high priority for fuels reduction treatments. Furthermore, we propose that ponderosa pine forests with these distinct management histories likely require distinct restoration approaches. We also highlight potential long-term risks of mechanical stand manipulation in unlogged forests and emphasize the need for a long-term view of fuels management.

UM Economic Expert: The Ongoing Troubles in the Forest Products Industry

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:22:11 AM MST

Dr. Power's piece is a good history lesson, as well as a lesson in Economics 101. Hopefully Senator Tester, his staff and those supporting his misguided Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (here and here) take heed.

Power's piece is below the fold...

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.

Western Lumber Industry had worst year on record, outlook even more dismal

by: Matthew Koehler

Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:33:27 AM MST

• Overall, U.S. demand for lumber in 2009 was less than half of what was consumed in 2005.

• The amount of lumber used for residential construction is down 76% compared to 2005.

•  The lack of home building in the U.S. contributed to the historic decline. Just 554,000 houses were built in 2009, a 39 percent decline from the previous year and a staggering 75% decline from 2005.

• Low demand translated into even lower prices for Western lumber products. The estimated wholesale value of the 2009 production was $2.69 billion, down 26 percent from 2008. Five years ago, Western mills produced 19.3 billion board feet of lumber valued at $7.7 billion.

• Since 2005, output from Western lumber mills has fallen by some 46 percent.

Given the fact that overall lumber demand in the U.S. is down 50% since 2005 and housing starts are down 75% since 2005 one really has to question the motivation and economic rationale of those who are calling for Congress to step in and mandate more public lands logging.

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.

MT Lowdown: Tester to unveil new forest bill draft details Thursday

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 15:08:12 PM MST

"Sen. Jon Tester will hold a conference call with reporters tomorrow [Thursday] morning to share details of a new draft of his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. It's not yet clear whether a full version of this latest draft will be available tomorrow or not."

As it stands right now, it sure seems as if the ENR Committee's draft (PDF Link available here) is far superior to Senator Tester's FJRA as originally introduced...so it will certainly be interesting to review the new FJRA draft coming from Senator Tester's office tomorrow.

It's unfortunate that Senator Tester proclaimed the ENR Committee's draft "Dead On Arrival."  In my view, the ENR Committee's draft is a giant step in the right direction and certainly worthy of consideration.  The fact of the matter is that the ENR Committee's draft would protect over 660,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness, which is one of the big goals we've heard touted by the collaborators.

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.

Sen Tester's FJRA vs The Wilderness Act

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:39:09 AM MST

The following information represents an easy to understand comparison between the Wilderness Act and current Wilderness policy versus certain Wilderness provisions within the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S.1470.

In order to allow all members of the public easy access to this information, please note that the page numbers below correspond to the exact page numbers of the bill, available for download right on Senator Tester's website.

Thank you. - MK

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.

GAO: USFS Fuel Reduction Projects 98% Litigation-Free

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 09:03:20 AM MST

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.

Is Wood Biomass Electric Generation Renewable and Carbon Neutral?

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 13:42:15 PM MST

---------

The development of renewable energy resources has become an increasingly important part of our nation's and states' current energy strategies. Most states have mandated that electric utilities obtain an increasing share of their electric supply from renewable sources. Federal and state governments have provided significant subsidies to those who develop new renewable energy resources, and energy firms are enthusiastically responding to those subsidies.

Former MWA Board and Council Members on Tester Logging Bill

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:19:06 AM MST

"It is with a heavy heart we are compelled to oppose the organization we once served as Council members and officers."

We, the undersigned former Council members and officers of the Montana Wilderness Association, respectfully urge Senator Tester to modify the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 to rectify the problems outlined by the Undersecretary of Agriculture as well as the Last Best Chance Wildlands Campaign. We cannot support the legislation as now written. We diverge from MWA here because we believe that the bill degrades both the quantity and quality of some of America's most cherished wildlands in Montana. We encourage consideration of the issues we have outlined below that would be necessary in order for us to support it.

We endorse the 10-point position paper, Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America's Public Wildlands, which has been submitted by the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.

The bill legislates the net loss of hundreds of thousands of roadless area acres, including S-393 Wilderness Study Areas designated in 1977 by the late Senator Lee Metcalf. This will create widespread environmental damage and the loss of an irreplaceable legacy for which future generations will, quite correctly, hold ours accountable. Also, the bills' Congressional mandate for timber cut levels sets a dangerous precedent. Resulting below-cost timber sales will cost taxpayers over $100 million. And proposed new Wilderness Areas are small, often disjointed, primarily "rock and ice" parcels that would fail to protect fragile wildland and wildlife ecosystems and corridors.

To make matters worse, the bill includes special provisions for new "Wilderness" units that defy both the intent and letter of the Wilderness Act, and the spirit of Wilderness that so many Americans believe is a vital and wondrous part of this great nation's heritage. Motor Vehicles, including helicopters, simply have no place in designated Wilderness. Yes, we need more Wilderness - lots of it - but we want it to be real Wilderness!

The bill also codifies secretive negotiated agreements - such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge - that excluded many individuals and groups who've long been involved in the public process. This, and similar agreements, have been sealed by MWA and others over the objections of excluded organizations and individuals, of whom most live and work close to the land and know the compromised areas intimately.

It is with a heavy heart that we are compelled to oppose the organization that we once served as Council members and officers. Most of Montana's undeveloped wilds are long gone, and we cannot afford to lose big chunks of what remains. We believe that in recent years, the Montana Wilderness Association [MWA] has clearly compromised its long-held wildland protection mission and vigilant advocacy. We know many current and former MWA members who agree. In fact, many conservationists in the region are convinced that, quite simply, MWA has lost its way. We are among those people.

In summary, this bill will irreparably damage Montana's dwindling public wildland legacy. It will salt the gaping social wounds created by MWA's recent actions. It degrades the Wilderness Act of 1964 with provisions that damage both Wilderness and the Wilderness Idea. And it's a bad deal for future generations of Montanans who will need wild country more than ever in an increasingly crowded and uncertain future.

Lou Bruno (past president) - East Glacier
Joan Montagne (past president) - Bozeman
Elaine Snyder (past president) - Kalispell
Loren Kreck (past vice-president) - Columbia Falls
Larry Campbell - Darby
Susan Colvin - Great Falls  
Paul Edwards - Helena
Randall Gloege - Billings
Keith Hammer - Kalispell
Steve Kelly - Bozeman
Lance Olsen - Missoula
Bob Oset - Hamilton
Paul Richards - Boulder
Ross Titus - Big Fork
George Wuerthner - Helena/Livingston
Janet Zimmerman - Pony

USFS Retiree on Tester Bill: Gutting the Forest Service is not the Solution

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 08:24:12 AM MST

Worf joined the Forest Service in 1950 and spent 12 years in Utah on the Uinta, Ashley and Fishlake National Forests. Mr. Worf then became the Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming.  When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, Worf was sent to the Forest Service National Office to head the development of Regulations and Policy for implementation of the Wilderness Act.  In 1969, he was assigned to the Regional Office in Missoula as Director for Wilderness, Recreation and Lands, a position he retired from in 1981. He lives in Missoula. Click here for a short video featuring Worf. - mk

-------------------------

Gutting the Forest Service is not the Solution
By Bill Worf

I am a Montana native who graduated with a degree in Forestry from the University of Montana in 1950, when I started a career in the U.S. Forest Service.  When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, I was serving as Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming.

Forest Service Chief Ed Cliff and Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman immediately tapped me to serve in the National Office to oversee implementation of the Wilderness Act.  I moved from Wyoming to Washington DC to administer the National Wilderness Preservation System established by the Act.  I served in that position until 1969, when  I was appointed Deputy Regional Forester for Wilderness, Recreation and Lands in Missoula, Mt.

Although I retired in 1983, I have remained involved in National Forest issues.  In this capacity, I have strong feelings about the Jobs and Recreation Bill (S 1470) introduced by Senator John Tester. I share the Senator's concern about growing fire and insect problems in our National Forests.  The Senator's heart may be in the right place, but his proposed solution would result in severe long-term damage to the Forest Service as an institution.

The Forest Service is one of the most respected agencies in government.  It contains the finest collection of natural resource professionals in the world.  I spent my professional career as a proud member.

With his logging bill, Tester is saying he knows more about how forests ought to be managed than professionals who work for the Forest Service.  Tester is telling us what to do and how to do it, even though what Tester wants may violate federal laws.  If Tester gets away with dictating forest management in Montana, every Senator and every Representative in Congress will try to do the same. Instead of being managed by one professional agency that considers all the views of public stakeholders from throughout the country, our National Forests would be managed by local interests primarily geared towards resource extraction.

By effectively dissolving the Forest Service, Tester would create 535 fiefdoms, all with different management mandates dictated by different members of Congress.  This would take away Americans' rights concerning our public lands.

What Tester may not know is that the National Forest System was established in 1897 by Congress.  Congress also established the Forest Service to administer these National Forests for the benefit of all Americans of present and future generations.  Subsequent laws provided additional guidance, including the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.  Congress passed these laws to ensure our National Forests are administered in a planned and sustainable way - in perpetuity.

Because Tester is a Hi-Line farmer, I figured he may not know much about Forest Service history.  So, I attended an open house on Monday, October 26, 2009, concerning his logging bill.  I shared with the senator that  heavy corporate and political pressure had caused the violation of the 1960 Act mandating "Sustained Yield".  This unwise overcutting of our National Forests resulted in the closure of mills in Montana and elsewhere.

I followed up my conversation with Tester by sending him a detailed letter on Thursday, November 12, 2009.  I included a 20-page comprehensive  analysis of Forest Service reports which clearly shows the failure to maintain a "Sustained Yield" throughout the National Forest System.

I strongly disagree with Tester that the answer to overcutting in the past is to overcut in the future.  Congressionally mandating logging quotas and legislatively dictating management would convert our National Forest into "Private-Local Forests."  This is directly contrary to 113 years of precedence.  When Congress passed the Organic Act in 1897, lawmakers were assured that National Forests would remain open to the public and not restricted to private companies or privileged groups.

The Tester bill effectively says that a handful of local extractive interests have greater knowledge than the professionals of our Forest Service.  This dangerous precedent would be viewed with glee by special interest groups of all kinds!   For that reason, I must oppose the Tester bill.

Bill Worf served with the Forest Service for 33 years.  Worf reports he has not yet received any reply to the detailed analysis he sent Tester on November 12, 2009.

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

USFS Chief Emeritus: Tester bill "flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed"

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:07:27 AM MST

Specifically, Mr. Thomas, stated that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act "approach is flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed, and has implications for the management of the entire national forest system. It should be debated in that context."

Mr. Thomas clearly expresses many of the same exact concerns about Sen. Tester's bill that have been expressed for months by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.

At what point will Senator Tester, and supporters of his flawed logging bill, begin addressing these serious concerns?