SOS Forests

Fire the Entire BLM

Mr. Tamper just got caught in his lies again. Sec Int Kenny Salazar has tampered with science documents relating to offshore drilling [here], he tampered with the the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) and the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (NSORP) [here], and now a document Kenny refused to provide Congress, under subpoena, has been leaked.

Kenny’s secret Treasured Landscapes blueprint for subverting democracy has been outed:

BLM document reveals big change in federal land management

By Sarah Dallof, KSL.com, August 5th, 2010 [here]

SALT LAKE CITY — KSL 5 News has obtained a document that outlines a huge change in how the federal government wants to manage federal land in Utah, and one Utah congressman says it makes him furious.

Congressman Rob Bishop’s office also recently received the document. Bishop said he’s angry because it would put virtually all land management power in the hands of the White House.

“Of the 264 million acres under BLM management, some 130- to 140-million acres are worthy of consideration as treasured lands. These areas [are] roughly equivalent in size to Colorado and Wyoming combined.” - BLM’s Treasured Landscapes paper

A portion of the document was leaked back in February [here] and led to speculation about a federal land grab in Utah. It talked about the creation of a 12 new national monuments.

Now, an outside source provided KSL with the entire document [here], and it does suggest a dramatically new philosophy for managing federal land.

The Bureau of Land Management’s document is stamped with “Internal Draft. Not for release.” Titled “Treasured Landscapes,” it lays out what some consider a sweeping and detailed plan for the next 25 years.

It took Bishop months to get the document, which lays out the context for the snippets released a few months ago. …

Among the key elements in the document:

BLM-managed public lands include rugged mountains, wild deserts and America’s last vesitges of large, untamed landscapes. These landscapes first captured the pioneer spirit and cultivated America’s romantic ideals of the Wild West.

Note the paean to a myth, the American Creation Myth. The use of the words “wild”, “untamed”, “pioneer spirit”, and “romantic ideals” indicate stark denial of previous habitation over thousands of years. Not only were those inhabitants wiped out and/or marched to reservations, the perpetrators of those outrages now deny even the existence of the First Residents.

It’s a a big Wild West according to the unnamed spin-doctor mythologists who wrote this document. Except it isn’t.

The BLM estimates that 35 million acres of its current landholdings, all of which have been identified by the public as worthy of special protection, should be considered for a new and heightened conservation designation. …

Should the legislation process not prove fruitful, or if a nationally significant natural or cultural land resource were to come under the threat of imminent harm, BLM would recommend that the Administration consider using the Antiquities Act to designate new National Monuments by Presidential Proclamation.

Well, it’s Wild, except where it’s cultural. But in any case, screw the established Congressional oversight and just declare 35 million acres of new “wilderness” against the will of our elected representatives.

We don’t need no stinking democracy around here.

Better accounting for the value of public lands left in a condition closer to the land’s natural state — whether measured in the amount of carbon sequestered by a stand of trees or native grasslands …

There’s the Gloooobal Waaarming Card. The BLM is going to sequester that carbon, until they incinerate it in one their Let It Burn holocausts, that is. It’s natural.

…Congress has limited the President’s authority to designate new national monuments in Wyoming and Alaska. … The BLM therefore particularly proposes that the Administration use the BLM’s land-use planning process .. to protect sensitive resources in Wyoming and Alaska.

We don’t need no stinking Congress telling us what to do. We can shut down whole states using our internal “process” and subvert the will of Congress. We’re the BLM; we’re bigger than those stinking elected doowahs. Hahahahahaha!

Maybe the best solution is to fire the entire workforce of the BLM today. They have grown too big for their britches. Maybe a few years in the unemployment line will knock them down a peg or two. Because this country does not belong to the trough sucking functionaries. They are mere servants to the public. The public are the actual owners. We do things democratically, via our elected representatives, in this country. Our democratic system is anathema to the BLM, and unfortunately anti-democracy is an intolerable attitude in our servant class.

Or we could just fire Mr. Tamper, and let that send a message to the suckers in the trough.

It’s really up to Congress. Are they going to put up with a subversive as Sec Int, or are they going to assert democracy?

Smart money says Congress are subversives themselves, and democracy will lose. Again.

Station Fire Probe - The View From Under the Bus

The LA Times reported today that CA Congress-types are called for a “sweeping probe” into the actions (and/or inactions) of the US Forest Service during the Station Fire.

Lawmakers seek broad probe into Forest Service response to Station fire

By Paul Pringle, Los Angeles Times, August 6, 2010 [here]

California’s two U.S. senators and several local House members Thursday called on Congress’ investigative arm to launch a sweeping probe into the Forest Service’s response to last summer’s disastrous Station fire.

In asking for the investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which typically grants such requests, the lawmakers recommended a broad examination of the Forest Service’s decisions and tactics. Those include the use of aircraft early in the fight and the question of whether everything possible was done to protect homes that burned in Big Tujunga Canyon.

The legislators also cited the disclosure this week that telephone dispatch recordings made during the fire were withheld from a Forest Service review team and the public. The Times requested the recordings last year and again this year, but Forest Service officials said they did not exist. …

In addition to Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, the signers include Reps. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), Judy Chu (D-El Monte) and Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks). …

The aforementioned letter [here] states in part:

Both the Forest Service and Los Angeles County Fire Department have conducted reviews of the fire and the response from both of these agencies. However, we have learned today that critical Forest Service dispatch recordings from the start of the fire were withheld from federal review teams. This casts a dark cloud over the findings of the review panel and immediately warrants an independent review of the Station Fire response.

Our purpose for this review is to ensure that all actions in the response to the fire were taken swiftly, properly and competently. Our constituents must know that every possible, reasonable and proper action was taken to fight the fire, and if there were instances where the proper actions were not taken, we must know why.”
It continues:

Most important, we must establish what lessons were learned from this devastating fire. By identifying mistakes made and where different choices would have caused better outcomes, agencies tasked with preventing and fighting fires will be able to better prepare and respond in the future.

We have discussed the Station Fire previously [here, here, here, here].

We have noted how the LA Times has flip-flopped from advocating cutbacks in aerial firefighting, because it is allegedly a waste of money, to decrying the alleged failure to employ timely and expensive aerial firefighting on the Station Fire.

Now Congress is joining the critics.

The USFS made a decision years ago to kowtow to the pro-holocausters, instituting a program of allowing wildfires to burn without any effort to contain, control, or extinguish them. Many of those fires have blown up and caused devastating damage to natural and human-built resources. It must have seemed to the USFS to be the politically expedient thing to do, because there is no other justification for incinerating vast tracts of America’s heritage forests, watersheds, homes, and towns.

Now, when a wildfire has impacted the heart of pro-holocauster neighborhoods in LaLa, the political goodwill the USFS thought it was accumulating has disappeared in a puff (or plume) of smoke. Their supposed political allies have thrown the Agency under the bus.

Let that be a Lesson Learned.

Political types are fickle. They have no loyalty, especially when their policies are ignorant, malformed, and destructive. Political expediency is a slippery prey. Instead of lunging for the expedient, the USFS should remain true to their statutory mission of good stewardship, regardless of whichever way the political winds might blow.

Now the piper has come home to roost. The view from under the bus is not a happy one.

How is the USFS responding? Have they learned their lesson? Not yet. The LA Times reports:

Meanwhile, the inspector general also will examine whether the Forest Service had the legal authority to record phone calls to the Angeles dispatch center without the consent of all callers. Radio dispatch communications are routinely recorded, but the Forest Service wants the inspector general to determine whether the phone recordings violated privacy rights, agency officials said.

In an internal memorandum Wednesday that was obtained by The Times, Forest Service Deputy Chief James Hubbard ordered all dispatch centers to stop recording calls until the matter is resolved.

That is called “circling the wagons” and it is ill-advised.

The USFS has suspended recording emergency dispatch calls? Whom in those communications is a “private” party? Do we suspend recording of 911 calls because some government official screwed up in an emergency?

Is secrecy the best course of action? Has stonewalling worked to date? A famous rule of excavation is: if you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging.

The USFS needs to realize that full transparency and honest stewardship efforts will serve them best in the long run. Otherwise they will be tire-tracked by the Big Political Bus again and again.

As Yellow As Journalism Gets

The LA Times is reporting that a federal inspector general has launched an investigation of possible negligence by the US Forest Service in fighting the Station Fire [here, here, here].

Last September the Station Fire (Angeles NF) burned 160,600 acres, and destroyed 90 homes. Two Los Angeles County firefighters were fatally injured during the fire. The Station Fire was the largest fire in LA County history, cost nearly $100 million in suppression expenses alone, and inflicted economic damages of 10 to 50 times that amount.

Shortly after the fire was contained, the LA Times charged that mistakes had been made in fighting the fire [here]. Specifically, the newspaper alleged that aerial attacks were delayed in the first hours of the Station Fire, and the delay led to the fire growing out of control.

Those charges were bolstered by questions raised by a number of retired USFS experts, including former Forest Supervisors, Regional Foresters, Deputy Chiefs, and Special Agents.

It has come to light that critical dispatch communications were recorded, but those recordings were not provided to the after-action review panel last November. The surfacing of the recordings prompted the inspector general investigation. The Obama Administration has also invited a Congressional inquiry.

Federal inspector general launches probe of Station fire

The Obama administration also invites Congress to order a broad inquiry after it is learned that dispatch recordings from the early hours of the blaze were withheld from a Forest Service review team.

By Paul Pringle, Los Angeles Times, August 4, 2010 [here]

A federal inspector general has launched an investigation and the Obama administration has invited Congress to order a broad inquiry into last summer’s disastrous Station fire after learning that dispatch recordings had been withheld from a U.S. Forest Service review team.

The telephone recordings, from the critical early hours of the blaze, also were withheld from The Times, which requested them under the Freedom of Information Act.

The inspector general’s probe will focus on why the several days of recordings were not provided to The Times or turned over to the Forest Service inquiry, which concluded that the agency’s initial attack on the fire was proper.

“I find this very serious,” Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said Tuesday. “I’m very concerned and troubled that this was not found earlier. … We want to get this information to learn what occurred on the Station fire.”

Tidwell said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, whose department runs the Forest Service, invited Congress to request the fuller investigation of the agency’s handling of the fire in the Angeles National Forest, a probe that would be conducted by the Government Accountability Office.

The content of the withheld recordings is not known. Tidwell said officials were still transcribing them and the results would be released in coming days.

He said the recordings were found after he ordered a reexamination of all records on the fire and the agency’s response to The Times’ requests for copies of audio dispatch communications, a number of which have been released. …

He said he wanted the reexamination completed before a panel of local members of Congress convened by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) holds a public meeting on the Station fire next Tuesday in Pasadena. Schiff scheduled the session after The Times reported that the Forest Service had misjudged the threat posed by the fire, scaled back the initial attack and failed to fill crucial orders for air tankers on the second morning. …

According to federal records and state officials, other tankers were available sooner, but the Forest Service failed to complete an order for them made by its own commander on the ground.

Dispatch records show that a Forest Service officer again asked for tankers about 7 a.m. Aug. 27, six hours after the initial request. Three Forest Service tankers were subsequently deployed, but did not reach the fire until after it began racing through the forest.

Most of the questions about how the fire became so destructive have focused on the absence of a fierce air attack in the hours after dawn on Day 2, as well as a decision the previous evening to reduce the number of ground crews. The flames had been nearly contained, in part because of a sustained pounding by helicopters and planes. After the aircraft returned to base at nightfall, the fire began to gather strength.

Officials said in September that they had believed enough aircraft were deployed early on Day 2. In the review conducted by the Forest Service, the agency concluded that aerial dumps during the hours after first light would have been ineffective because the blaze was burning in a canyon too steep for ground crews to safely finish extinguishing the flames.

After that finding was disputed by firefighters at the scene as well as by the Forest Service’s own records, officials told The Times and the Senate panel that the tankers were not sent sooner because of a shortage of rested pilots and relief aircraft.

Records and interviews later showed that state tankers were available. …

more »

Washington View: Federal policies helped spark California wildfires

By Don Brunell, The Columbian, August 3, 2010 [here]

Once again, dozens of wildfires are raging across California, reducing entire forests to cinders and displacing thousands of families. As they burn, these fires pump millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) —declared by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as a dangerous pollutant — into the air.

Ironically, this environmental and human devastation is due in part to federal environmental policies.

For decades, federal forest management policy has been, in effect, not to manage forests. Because of pressure from environmental groups, many federal and state forests are off limits to harvest and even to “housekeeping” activities, such as thinning, clearing undergrowth and removing dead and diseased trees. The philosophy is, let nature take its course.

Unfortunately, nature cleans its house with fire. Undergrowth and diseased trees provide the fuel; lightning or the errant camper provides the spark. …

President George W. Bush tried to address the situation with his Healthy Forests initiative, which put people to work clearing brush and salvaging diseased trees while bringing in income from salvage logging companies. Unfortunately, the effort was stopped in its tracks by environmentalists. …

The consequences of a massive wildfire today would be catastrophic. A century ago, the Big Burn scorched three million acres of forests from Boise into Canada and from east of Spokane to west of Missoula. Today, more than 13 million people live in that area.

Even our firefighters are being handcuffed in the name of environmental protection. Recently, a federal judge rejected the way the U.S. Forest Service uses fire retardant to fight wildfires because it couldn’t ensure that the retardant wouldn’t harm threatened and endangered species. The judge did not address the harm a raging inferno would cause to those same animals.

One has only to watch the nightly news to see the devastation caused by wildfires. Add to that the human and economic cost to battle the fires and the environmental degradation that results.

Congress and the President must restore sanity and common sense to our federal forest management policy. Sensible management, clearing dead and diseased trees and reducing underbrush is a much more responsible policy than “burn, baby, burn.”

Don Brunell is president of the Association of Washington Business, Washington state’s chamber of commerce. Visit http://www.awb.org.

State Foresters Don’t Like Federal Let It Burn Policies

On July 6 the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) released a “briefing paper” entitled “Identifying Communities at Risk and Prioritizing Risk-Reduction Projects” [here].

This paper is intended to provide national guidance for identifying communities at risk, conducting planning efforts that are consistent with national initiatives, and to reinforce the role of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) in setting priorities, effecting progress, and measuring success toward reduction of wildfire risk for America’s communities.

The NASF is “a non-profit organization comprised of the directors of forestry agencies in the states, territories and the District of Columbia of the United States.” Ostensibly the NASF represents State Foresters. Their concerns are such things as wildfire suppression funding, sustainable forestry, forest product markets, etc.

In their briefing paper on Communities At Risk, NASF acknowledges that “communities” is a difficult thing to define and map:

Unfortunately neither definition for community nor wildland urban interface lends itself to a spatial analysis using geographic information systems. … The number of communities, community boundaries, and wildland urban interface are so dynamic that strict definitions and inventories are generally not applicable. A flexible and expandable approach to identifying communities and addressing risk may be necessary in some areas.

But they are giving it a shot. In their briefing paper NASF expresses valid concern about fire risks and is attempting to address them:

Projects, not communities, should be prioritized based on probability of success, efficiency through community involvement and collaboration, and on sustainability. However, wildfire risk will be the key principle used in identifying projects from the outset. As the challenges of addressing communities at risk increase, the process may become more focused on additional mitigation measures that address actual risk—fire prevention, forest resource management, and Firewise principles.

That was July 6th. On July 12 NASF released another briefing paper (which does not appear on their website!) entitled “State Forestry Agency Perspectives Regarding 2009 Federal Wildfire Policy Implementation” [here].

That second briefing paper is a little more hard hitting than the first one. It acknowledges that State Foresters have no say so in how the Feds fight fires that threaten communities at risk. State Foresters wish that the Feds would implement aggressive fire suppression strategies,

Safe and aggressive initial attack is the best suppression response to keep wildfires small and costs down.

but they recognize that the Feds are not doing so. They also recognize that Federal Let It Burn policies impact state fire suppression efforts when the Fed fires leap across jurisdictional boundaries and impinge on state-protected lands:

Prior to the core fire season, an extensive outreach effort should be made to explain federal fire policy to cooperators, local government representatives, and private property owners. Consistent use of terminology (i.e. “fire use, appropriate management response, or resource benefit”) and a clear explanation of related processes (i.e. WFDSS, Management Action Points, Long Term Implementation Plan, etc.) should be addressed.

The Feds are doing crazy stuff, i.e. Let It Burn, and they are not providing any sort of credible explanation for it, not to State Foresters’ satisfaction at any rate. Furthermore, the Feds are burdening States with fire suppression costs from those “escaped” fires. That is not satisfactory to NASF, either:

On incidents where the decision is made to manage a fire or portion thereof for resource benefits, the jurisdictional agency should be prepared to assume all suppression costs.

Adjacent fire protection entities, including state and local government, should be consulted regarding fire management strategies, and shared decision-making reinforced whenever possible.

Adjacent fire protection entities should provide prompt notification to agencies when concerns exist about wildfires that are managed strategically for resource benefit that have the potential to impact adjacent jurisdictions.

When conflicts regarding fire response arise at the local level, each geographic area should establish protocols for how to pursue and resolve issues at a higher level, if needed. Such a protocol should be developed and adopted at the Geographic Area level.

What the State Foresters are saying is that the Feds are out of control. The Feds are allowing wildfires to burn, allegedly for resource “benefits”, but those fires are blowing up, crossing onto state-protected land, putting communities at risk, and placing tremendous burdens on the states to put out uncontrolled fires emanating from Federal lands.

That is a serious issue in states and locales where the Feds own 50, 60 or even 90 percent of the land.

The Feds are not “cooperating” or “coordinating” with state fire agencies. They are not even communicating. There are no explanations, no notices, no consultations regarding foofurbs (fires used for resource “benefit”). And when damages to private landowners arise from Federal Let It Burn fires, the Feds are not assuming any liability or recompensing the States or the victims.

Financial and personnel impacts to other fire protection entities due to resource-benefit fire management strategies should be mitigated as much as possible.

Any available claims process for resource losses from a fire managed for resource benefit should be made known and available to all potentially affected parties.

Many National Forests have adopted Let It Burn. In the case of forests like the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, every single acre on the Forest has been determined to be suitable for Let It Burn [here, here, here, here, here, here, here and more]. The Payette NF has deliberately incinerated over a million acres since 1993, decimating forests, watersheds, homes, and communities [here and more]. The list of “escaped” Let It Burn fires goes on and on. Every state in the West has been impacted by damaging fires that “escaped” Federal control and spread to state-protected lands.

NASF is not too pleased about that:

Broad application of modified suppression strategies—particularly within the WUI, commercially viable timber stands, or critical watersheds/wildlife habitat—is not advisable. Within these areas, federal agencies should limit the use of resource-benefit fire strategies to lands where priority areas identified in local Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) have been treated to reduce fire risk.

Expanded use of resource-benefit fire management strategies may transfer a significant amount of financial and safety risk to state and local governments. Consequently, representatives from these entities should be informed well before the fire season and directly involved with any decisions to expand use of this tool.

In areas where resource-benefit fire management strategies are appropriate, stakeholders must continue dialogue aimed at clearly conveying the roles, responsibilities and liabilities that may come with such strategies. Pre-season exercises and discussions are vital to ensure management of such fires minimizes threats to adjacent property and the frustration of affected communities.

That rhetoric is rather subdued, in my opinion. NASF should take the gloves off. Federal Let It Burn fires are NOT benefiting resources and they ARE putting communities at risk. State Foresters need to do more than politely complain — they need to DEMAND accountability. The Feds should have to prove to the States that Let It Burn is risk-free and beneficial, or else cease and desist from Let It Burn practices.

“Pre-season exercises and discussions” will not suffice. The only responsible course of action is to contain, control, and extinguish wildfires unless and until the Feds undertake legally-mandated, exhaustive and collaborative processes that demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that Let It Burn fires are appropriate.