Is the U.S. Forest Service greedy or reckless?

[Gary_C]

I just read a long story that illustrates the problem with the US Forest Service.

In 1998, ranchers in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming were told by the US fish and wildlife Service (FWS) that under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) they had to give up 238,000 acre-feet of water annually to "save" species along the North Platte River in Nebraska.

The ranchers learned that the US Forest Service had already reported that as much as 396,000 acre-feet of new water could be generated annually if the Forest Service increased the timber harvested from the national forest land that surrounded the ranchers and serve as the watershed for the North Platte River. The forest service rejected the ranchers proposal, rejoining that it had no obligation to comply with the ESA.

The ranchers sued in Wyoming federal district court. Scores of federal lawyers for the Forest Service, the FWS, and the Dept of Justice jumped into the case, raising a host of defenses. Environmental groups intervened, not to demand that the Forest Service protect species, but to defend the agency against any requirement that it fufill its primary job-as ordained by Congress-of of harvesting timber and providing water supplies.

Then, in 1999, five weeks before trial, the federal judge dismissed the case. It was not "ripe," he ruled, because Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska were negotiating on how, by 2001, they could agree to cough up the water the FWS demanded and, the forest service was revising a plan and might agree to harvest timber to provide water for the species.

Just recently, five years after the district court envisioned, the three state agreement went final. The cost: a whopping $317 million; $157 million will be paid by US taxpayers, the rest by the three states. As to the Forest Service, in Dec 2003 they rejected without any detailed consideration, recommendations to increase timber harvesting and maximize the water yield. Oh, by the way, the final plan is to yield 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet annually, short of the 238,000 needed.

Thus a win-win proposal, which would have generated more than enough water for the species, created jobs and revenues, preserved forest health, and secured local economics, at no additional cost, was rejected.

In its place is a multi-million dollar scheme that creates losers all around, beginning with those ranchers in Colorado and Wyoming.

(This information comes from the Jan 2007 Loggers World Publication)

We deserve better government than this!!!!!

[Blue Duck]

We deserve better government than this!!!!!

No truer words have ever been spoken my friend.  I work Govco (local goverment to be accurate) and look forward to the day I can walk away from the Land of Goverment Stupid.  I didn't quite understand the story but get the point non the less.

[MDP]

Thanks for taking the time to share that article Gary. Loggers World is an excellent publication and has a lot of informative stories that relate to us who are in the resource business. That article makes one wonder who's side is the government on.

[Rocky_Ranger]

I don't want to throw water on this thing because I haven't read the story, but these facts just don't add up.  Water in Colorado is not owned where the rain or snow falls but by whomever was first to put it to use and first in priority (the first one to do so).  It's called the Postponement Doctrine.  Been around since the 1870's and was the the main reason Colorado was settled after the gold and silver rushes.  The practice mentioned is commonly called "logging for water" and holds more promise than has been shown to pan out.  I don't know, it seems right to me if you log and open up the forest then more snow will collect and increse runnoff.  Not so much caught in the limbs and needles only to be evaporated back to the Maker's realm.   

However, the studies I've seen don't settle the notion either way.  If you are an optimist Optimist you can cut your way to more water than you can use.  If you are a pessimist you might get 5 – 10% increase but only in wet years and only during runoff.  Take your pick.  I do know when the environmentalists got a' hold of this notion they promised to take it to court and keep it there until they won.  Scientifically, it hasn't been proven to any degree one way or the other.  However, if the water was somehow created then whoever filed on the water would have the right to use it based on priority basis.  It would not belong to the Forest Service unless they filed for those rights.  Also, since most of the water distribution systems (read rivers and streams) are already over appropriated then the water could be gobbled up before it could be used in a later filing.  I'd like to read the article but don't subscribe to that magazine.

[Gary_C]

Rocky Ranger, I am glad you explained that as I wasn't sure how that worked. You can read the entire article here, but I don,t think it add much more. The water the FWS was demanding did belong to the ranchers and they did have the right to use it in perpetuity.

Summary Judgment

[Ron Wenrich]

Perpetuity doesn't exist in US courts.  It was struck down when the US took back some indian reservation ground in the '60s or thereabouts.

I took a short course on hydrology, but its been awhile.  You can increase the amount of water coming off of piece of ground by doing a clearcut.  A lot depends on the aspect and slope as to how much water comes off.  The only problem is that it isn't a permanent type of fix.  The forest will grow back and the amount will start to decrease.  There is also a question of water quality, since turbidity gets to be a factor until there is some sort of vegetation on the clearcut.

I think the FS didn't want to make a precedence from this type of a case.  If they were to make up a set amount of water, what would prevent someone going to court to have them make up more?  I'm not saying that they couldn't do it, but they may have a problem of maintaining it.

[SwampDonkey]

Also, just to add the water flow also depends on the soil depth to impermeability ( 1 ft vs 6 ft), soil texture, compaction, frozen soil, the water inputs, time of year (growing season), and type of vegetation (conifer vs hardwood vs grasses and herbs). Also, the flow of water at a certain level goes up and down quicker when not forested. I've never read a paper on the uptake of water by thick sapling regrowth versus mature trees. I wonder what the difference is. Of course that changes over time with stand development I'm sure. I've read of studies done on clearcut areas, where the vegetation was controlled by herbicide to estimate evapotranspiration, however the loss through the soil surface and humous (wicking) was not measured.

Stream discharge is a function of horizontal velocity and vertical velocity, both of which vary depending on where the measurements are taken. Weirs (on small watersheds) and flumes (on streams with heavy sediment) are used for more accurate measurements.

Iowa State University Press has a good book titled " Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds"

Cheers

[Gary_C]

They say the National Forests in the West are overgrown and in desperate need of thinning. So if the FS actually did what they are supposed to do (thinning and low intensity burning) would that increase the annual run off and still maintain water quality?

The 396,000 acre-feet of water the ranchers proposed to substitute for taking their water actually was contained in a Forest Service report. The FS had already reported they could generate that much water if they increased timber harvesting in the watershed.

[Ron Wenrich]

Thinnings may increase run off for awhile, but, it wouldn't be near the amount as a clearcut.  All the thinnings should do is to increase growth on the remaining stems, and reduce fireload.  The purpose of the thinnings is not to increase water runoff. 

Increasing harvest will increase the runoff if you are using a clearcut regimen. 

[Rocky_Ranger]

Very good discussion and ideas!  Water as we know it though takes on another form in Colorado.  An example; during a fire two years ago we were dipping from a pond trying to keep some houses from burning.  We had several helicopters – three type 1's hauling 1,500 gals at a swoop and dipped an extensive amount from the pond.  The owner was going to charge us 40 cents/gallon (after the fire was out) for the water.  Normal rate is 11 – 12 cent per gallon but I digress....  Come to find out, the pond was owned by the guy (the hole and the berm) but the water itself belonged to somebody entirely different.  Water flowing through the National Forests in Colorado belongs to whoever filed on it.  All those pictures showing water in the lakes and streams in reality the water is owned mostly by the farmers on the eastern plains and the cities along the I-25 corridor.

Logging for water is a good idea and might work (but as Ron has pointed out) it ain't once and done.  It is continual management to keep the forest vegetation at a stage that maximizes water production every year.  There are way too many variables involved to even go that route on Federal lands including any excuse some folks have of managing anything on the National Forests.  Even if a person tries to move forward then water quality issues come into play.

I know I get a little defensive when it comes to the Forest Service and yes, we've done some of the stupidest things in history but I will try and clarify when we don't deserve the criticism on a particular issue.  But – we are doing some good things too.  My District this year is selling about 29 million board feet of timber and prepping another 15 million for next year.  That 15 million will have another 10 million added after September 1, 2007.   Log on brotheres log on.......

[Gary_C]

Rocky Ranger
You are right in being defensive. I apologize for laying this problem on the Forest Service. Actually the real cause of the problem is how all government agencys operate.

Even if you accept the additional water needs as claimed by the FWS to "save" this species, and they do not have a very good track record in saving anything. And even if you doubt the Forest Service's own report that 396,000 acre-feet of water could be produced by additional logging, the idea to try that option certainly had everything going for it. And I can just imagine the FS management saying "screw those people over at FWS, they are not going to lock us into doing anything." Thus the FWS most likely believed their best bet was to try to bully the local ranchers into giving up their water to satisfy their demands. So eight years and almost a third of a BILLION dollars later, a agrement was reached that most likely will not work either, the ranchers lost much time and money fighting the proposal, and the agency heads can all sit back and say "we won that battle."   

[Rocky_Ranger]

I doubt the Chief of the Forest Service, his Deputies, and the Regional Forester for Region 2, and his Deputies are saying they won that battle.  I remember when this first came up, the Regional Forester was quoted as hoping to try it and see if it worked.  I also remember the fire storm it created in the environmental movements at his statement.  Office of General Council (OGC) there in Denver handle all the water cases for the western US for the Forest Service.  I know most of those folks and can assure you if there is a way to make something work they will find it.  The issues you bring up are very complicated, much more so than I'm able to cipher.  FWS is an Agency of regulatory actions, the USFS is more into managing resources.  It ain't always a good marriage  – that's all I got to say about that one.......  Bottom line, managing a dynamic forest for increasing water yield has a very low chance of survival.  I don't care who done the research.

[Ron Scott]

USDA ANNOUNCES  ABIGAIL KIMBELL AS THE 16TH CHIEF OF THE FOREST  SERVICE    

Forest  Service Chief Dale Bosworth Announces his  Retirement
   
  WASHINGTON, January 12, 2007 - The U.S.  Department of Agriculture today announced the  selection of Abigail Kimbell as the 16th chief  of the Forest Service. Kimbell succeeds Chief  Dale Bosworth, who is retiring on Feb. 2 after  41 years with the Forest Service.  "Abigail Kimbell is a veteran of the Forest  Service who began as a seasonal worker and has  since filled an impressive series of field  assignments," said Agriculture Secretary Mike  Johanns. "Gail brings a wealth of knowledge to  her new position. She is well respected both  within the agency and by our stakeholders. I'm  confident she will do a terrific job as chief."   

"I am grateful to Dale Bosworth for his 41  years of public service and especially for the  tremendous leadership he provided during his six  years as chief," Johanns continued. "I am struck  by all that the Forest Service accomplished  under his watch, from advancing the Healthy  Forest Initiative to a four-fold increase in  fuels treatment work. He also bolstered the  agency's financial system, making it a source of  pride government wide. I wish Dale all the best  in retirement."

Kimbell currently serves as Regional Forester  for the Northern Region in Missoula, Montana,  which includes northern Idaho, and North Dakota.  As Forest Service Chief, Kimbell will oversee an  organization of over 30,000 employees and a  budget of just over $4 billion. Before becoming  regional forester, Kimbell served in the  Washington Office as Associate Deputy Chief for  the National Forest System, with responsibility  for assisting in the development of the Healthy  Forest Restoration 

[Ron Scott]

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal of Lolo Salvage Sale Decision

  The Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal of a 9th Circuit ruling on a Lolo National Forest timber salvage sale. The high court rejected a request by a group of Montana Counties, school districts, the timber industry and the Justice Department asking for a hearing on the Circuit Court ruling because it imposes new scientific and procedural requirements on the Forest Service. The WildWest Institute (formerly the Ecology Center) challenged the 2002 project in federal court. The Montana district court sided with the Forest Service, but a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit overruled the district court decision, voting 2-1 to grant summary judgment to the environmentalists.  The panel found that the Forest Service had scant evidence to prove the claim that thinning and salvage logging in old-growth forests would benefit wildlife and it was unclear whether the proposed logging would benefit old-growth dependent species like the northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker. The court also said the Forest Service should have conducted soil testing in the project area rather than use information from test of similar soils in other areas.

[OneWithWood]

We have an abundance of Northern Goshawks and Pileated Woodpeckers around here and there isn't any old growth for miles. or even in the state.

[SwampDonkey]

I've never heard the old growth angle either. All it takes is a woodlot full of open trails and narrow roads and few hares and ruffed grouse running around and you'll have goshawks. In fact I seen one last fall/winter here on my woodlot that caught a couple grouse for lunch. I seen him in a distance lugging one on one visit and seen where he just killed one down the road in front of my eyes and my woodlot is mostly plantation. ;D

[Ron Scott]

Since they are able to fly, they may be seen outside of mature and old growth forests, but they are in need of such habitat to maintain a viable population.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/SPECIES/goshawk/goshawk.html

http://www.pileatedwoodpeckercentral.com/information.htm

[SwampDonkey]

Now that I recall from other sitings, I have seen them in mature sugar maple stands in mid canopy perching. Probably looking for prey, never seen a nest of them though. But around here there seems to be quite a few and the mature forests are very fragmented on private woodlots. I think the old growth spin has to do with the Pacific Northwest subspecies, interestingly named for the Queen Charlotte Islands. But if it is also true for the Eastern subspecies, then it is all the more important to leave full cycle trees and wolf trees that species such as hemlock, white pine, red spruce, and sugar maple can provide for their needs. Those woodlots with all the scattered pine and hemlock left may be doing more good than the logger ever realized.

[OneWithWood]

We do have mature forests here.  Many of my trees are over 80 so I would call that mature.  Mature but definately not old growth. 
I really enjoy watching those birds.