SOS Forests

A New Wildland Fire Executive Council

On Feb. 15 last, Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, and Thomas Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, announced in the Federal Register [here] the establishment of a new “Wildland Fire Executive Council (WFEC)”.

February 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8768]

Establishment of the Wildland Fire Executive Council

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture are announcing the establishment of the Wildland Fire Executive Council (WFEC). The purpose of the WFEC is to provide advice on the coordinated national level wildland fire policy leadership, direction, and program oversight in support to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Rowdabaugh, Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 2660, Washington, DC 20240; (202) 606-3447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The WFEC is being established as a discretionary advisory committee under the authorities of the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, in furtherance of 43 U.S.C. 1457 and provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) and in accordance with the provisions of the FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture certify that the formation of the WFEC is necessary and is in the public interest.

The WFEC will conduct its operations in accordance with the provisions of the FACA. It will report to the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture through the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, which is comprised of, in part, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget and the Directors of National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Geological Survey for the Department of the Interior, and for the Department of Agriculture, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, the Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, and the Chief of the Forest Service.

The Department of the Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire Coordination will provide support for the WFEC.

The purpose of the WFEC is to provide advice on the coordinated national level wildland fire policy leadership, direction, and program oversight in support to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council.

The WFEC will meet approximately 6-12 times a year. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint members on a staggered term basis for terms not to exceed 3 years.

Members of the WFEC shall be composed of representatives from the Federal government, and from among, but not limited to, the following interest groups. (1) Director, Department of the Interior, Office of Wildland Fire Coordination; (2) Director, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management; (3) Assistant Administrator, U.S. Fire Administration; (4) National Wildfire Coordinating Group; (5) National Association of State Foresters; (6) International Association of Fire Chiefs; (7) Intertribal Timber Council; (8) National Association of Counties; (9) National League of Cities; and (10) National Governors’ Association.

No individual who is currently registered as a Federal lobbyist is eligible to serve as a member of the WFEC.

Certification Statement: I hereby certify that the establishment of the Wildland Fire Executive Council is necessary and is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture under 43 U.S.C. 1457 and provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).

Ken Salazar,
Secretary of the Interior.
Dated: February 3, 2011.
Thomas Vilsack,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2011-3350 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-J4-P

What does this mean? For starters, we review some history of Federal wildfire management. Please refer to A Short History of the WFLC [here].

more »

Chill Out at the Oscars

And the Oscar for Most Deluded State goes to… California!

Again!

Yes, sports fans, the illusions of Tinsel Town have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the most gullible citizens in human history, Californians. Tonight, while they freeze their buns off, the Beautiful People will weep crocodile tears about glooobal waaarming, something that is manifestly NOT happening in California.

Freeze their buns? Affirmatory — as reported in the La La Times:

A cold Oscar night on tap as frost warnings issued

By Sam Allen, Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2011 [here]

For Oscar Sunday, the rain and snow of the last few days will give way to clear skies, with temperatures remaining cold. Forecasters said those on the red carpet and at the Oscar parties should have temperatures in the 40s.

The cold weather closed the Grapevine due to snow and ice overnight. But Sunday morning, the California Highway Patrol began escorting vehicles along Interstate 5 again.

A frost advisory was in effect in some mountain and high desert areas, with officials warning of temperatures in the 20s this morning — cold enough to kill plants and crops.

On Saturday, Burbank, Glendale and Studio City were some of the areas that saw flakes of soft hail or snow pellets, according to weather reports. The precipitation was part of an unusual weather system that flowed south from Canada and dropped snow and rain across much of the state. [emphases added]

How unusual is the weather system? Not very. In fact, it’s par for the course and likely to show up ever more frequently in the future. That’s because California has been cooling off unsteadily for the last 30 years!

From the National Climatic Data Center, Climate Services and Monitoring Division, Climate At A Glance [here]

Winter (Dec-Feb) Temperatures, California, 1980-2010, with trend line.
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1901 - 2000 Average = 45.60 degF
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1980 - 2010 Trend = -0.41 degF / Decade

That’s right, sports fans. Winter in CA has been getting colder at the rate of -0.41°F for 30 years! That’s an accumulated drop of -1.23°F. And the chill down is expected to cool even more over the next 25 years, driven by the PDO shift.

Brrrrrr!!!!!

Look for blue lips, goosebumps, and faux fur coats on the red carpet tonight!

What is amazing about Hollywoodia is that the denizens are completely blind to their own weather. Despite the FACT that CA has been cooling off for 30 years, the Chic Set are fabulously ALARMED at how much warmer it isn’t.

Proof? The Academy gave Algor an Oscar for his craptastic movie, An Inconvenient Lie. The Congressrodent from Hollywood is Henry “Mouse” Waxman, the author and bottlewasher of the Waxman-Malarkey Glooobal Waaarming Hysteria Bill.

The CA Legislature and Governator Ahnold enacted AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which sets up a carbon offset market (despite the corruption and subsequent bankruptcies of carbon markets in Chicago and Europe [here, here, here]). California voters had a chance to reject AB32 last November, but Proposition 23 failed 60% to 40%.

Yep sir, sports fans, CA voters suckered under to their own glooobal waaarming Ponzi scheme by 3-to-2, even though California has been cooling for 30 years!!!!! And subject to electricity brown-outs already as the principal target of Enron before it collapsed in the largest bankruptcy in history. But they WANT to huddle in the cold and dark for no rational reason.

Is that delusional or what?

Never underestimate the capacity of Californians to self-delude. They are the champs of hubristic mass insanity in the modern era. If they see it on TV, it must be real, and damn their own lying eyes and frozen buns. Plastic fantastic sparkly phoniness trumps reality in CA every time.

Look for lips stuck to frozen statuettes tonight as the winners kiss their economy good-bye. In CA, if it feels good, do it, even if it’s the nuttiest thing imaginable.

Note: special tip of the faux fur hat to Ken S. for suggesting this post

Wisconsin Turmoil — Lessons for Oregon

Rep. Richardson’s Newsletter, February 25, 2011

I am State Representative Dennis Richardson and this newsletter is for Oregonians interested in learning more about the economic issues that affect our state. Today’s newsletter begins with an overview on Oregon’s budget crisis, and then compares and contrasts Oregon with Wisconsin to see what we can learn from Wisconsin’s current turmoil.

Oregon’s Economic Crisis

I would like to actually speak with you about Oregon’s Budget — what it is and what economic factors will influence most the preparation of the 2011-13 two year (“biennial”) budget.

Please turn up your computer’s volume, sit back and watch this week’s budget presentation on YouTube. I hope you find it informative. [Click here]

Wisconsin and Oregon — Comparison and Contrast

If you have been watching the action in Wisconsin, you know of the public employee outrage, orchestrated demonstrations and partisan controversy over their Governor’s response to Wisconsin’s budget crisis.

Are there lessons for Oregon to learn from what is transpiring in Wisconsin?

Consider the following facts:

* Wisconsin has a population of 5.7 million.

* Oregon has a population of 3.8 million.

* Wisconsin has a budget shortfall of at least $3.6 billion over the next two years.

* Oregon has a budget shortfall of at least $3.5 billion over the next two years.

* Wisconsin State workers currently pay 6% of their health benefit costs and are being asked to increase the employee’s portion and pay 12% of their health care premiums. (Kaiser Family Foundation states the national average contribution toward healthcare policies among government and private workers is nearly 30%.)

* Oregon State workers currently pay nothing (0%) toward their health benefits. (Oregon is the only state in the USA that pays 100% of its employee health benefit and PERS costs.)

* Wisconsin State workers currently pay 1% of their retirement plan costs and they are being asked to increase employee contributions to 5.8%. (The national average for government worker contributions toward retirement plans is 6.3%.)

* Oregon State workers currently pay nothing (0%) toward their retirement plan (PERS) costs. [Click here]

* Wisconsin’s proposal includes prohibiting most government workers from (1.) collectively bargaining for anything other than their salaries, and (2.) demanding pay increases above the Consumer Price Index measure of inflation. To bypass the salary cap would require voter approval. Additionally, Wisconsin’s proposal would stop unions from requiring public employees to pay union dues.

* Oregon has no limitations on public employee unions or their ability to collectively bargain, and Oregon collects union dues from state employee paychecks. (Oregon’s public employee unions are free to continue negotiating for the State to pay 100% of both health and PERS retirement benefits for all State workers. [Wisconsin information source click here]

How have Wisconsin’s citizens responded to the on-going partisan clash between its Governor and the public employee unions?

A just-released poll of Wisconsin citizens reveals the following:

* By 74-18, Wisconsin voters support making state employees pay more for their health insurance.

* By 79-16, Wisconsin voters support requiring state workers to contribute more toward their retirement/pension plan.

* By 54-34, Wisconsin voters support ending the automatic deduction of union dues from state workers’ paychecks, and support making unions collect dues from each member.

* By 66-30, Wisconsin voters support limiting state workers’ pay increases to the rate of inflation unless voters approve a higher raise by a public referendum.

* By 41-54, Wisconsin voters oppose limiting collective bargaining to wage and benefit issues.

* By 58-38, Wisconsin voters support limiting collective bargaining on matters relating to educational issues such as, (1.) giving schools flexibility to modify tenure, (2.) paying teachers based on merit, and (3.) discharging bad teachers and promoting good ones. [To see poll, click here]

Is Wisconsin’s turmoil a precursor for Oregon? You decide.

Sincerely,

Dennis Richardson
State Representative

The Decline and Fall of Forest Science

The failures of the environmental sciences in our day and age are not confined to climatology. Universities and forest research institutions have squandered $billions pursuing the wrong answers to the wrong forest science questions.

The decline and fall of Western forest science can be traced back to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s when rigorous application of the Scientific Method was abandoned along with most of the prior advancements of the 20th Century. And after 50 years of substituting mythology and political ideas for scientific ones, the forest science establishment has hit rock bottom.

Nowhere is the incompetence of modern forest science more striking than the current fad of blaming non-existent “global warming” for every forest phenomenon large and small. Case in point:

Researchers cite climate change in forest decline

AP, the Washington Examiner, 02/19/11 [here]

Aspens and white pines in the West will face worsening devastation because climate change will make them more susceptible to diseases and bugs, including an infestation of bark beetles that has already killed some 33,000 square miles of forests, researchers say.

Jim Worrall, a U.S. Forest Service plant pathologist who studies aspen deaths, told a conference Friday that “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” indicates climate change has left aspens stressed and vulnerable. …

White pines, common in Montana and parts of Wyoming, aren’t as resilient and have begun to fall victim to bark beetles because warmer temperatures allowed the bugs to move north, said Diana Six, professor of forest entomology and pathology at the University of Montana.

Previously, they were protected by temperatures too cold for bark beetles, but when temperatures rise, the trees have few defenses, Six said. …

Phillip van Mantgem, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said 87 percent of old growth stands that he and others on a research team are monitoring have shown increasing mortality rates, and that the rate doubled in the past 18 years.

“The ultimate cause behind it is probably warming,” van Mantgem said. …

Former Vice President Al Gore addressed the conference, defending climate researchers from criticism about their motives, the Aspen Daily News reported.

“I hear from some quarters that the scientists who are presenting this information to us are interested in making money and that they are making stuff up and hyping it in order to get research grants,” he said. “It is an insult to these men and women who were on this stage today.” …

The problem with all those theories are that they are demonstrably false. Winter temperatures in Colorado have been falling for 20 years.

From the National Climatic Data Center, Climate Services and Monitoring Division, Climate At A Glance [here]

Winter (Dec-Feb) Temperatures, Colorado, 1992-2010, with trend line (1901 - 2000 Average = 25.36 degF).

Note that average winter temperatures in Colorado have been below freezing in every year on record since record keeping began in 1895. Over the last 20 years winter temperatures have declined -0.76 degF per decade. In January 2011 (last month) the average temperature was 23.4 degF, one-tenth of a degree below the 1901-2011 January average and 2 degF below the 1901-2011 winter average.

Winter temperatures in Colorado have not changed significantly over the last 115 years, and they have fallen slightly over the last 20 years, the very period that the researchers above cite as so warm as to cause aspen to die off, beetle infestations to irrupt, and old growth stands to experience increased mortality.

Al Gore presents a strawman argument. Some “quarters” allegedly claim that Colorado forest scientists are “making stuff up” for mercenary reasons, according to Al (who, by the way, has made over $100 million on carbon trading and other global warming alarmism scams).

But Colorado forest scientists are not making up aspen decline, beetle epidemics, or old growth mortality increases. Those phenomena are occurring. No one disputes that.

What Colorado forest scientists are fabricating are bogus theories as to why those things are happening. They blame global warming, and specifically increasing winter temperatures in Colorado, but there have been NO increases in said temperatures.

Colorado forest scientists posit a causal link between something that has not occurred (winter temperature increase) and forest decline phenomena. If the causal factor does not exist, it cannot cause anything.

That’s basic science, indeed basic logic, upon which the Scientific Method relies. Colorado forest scientists might as well say that little green men from outer space caused Colorado forests to decline.

Wait, you say, there are no little green men from outer space. You are correct. Likewise there has been no winter temperature increase. The latter is as imaginary as the former.

Science seeks to understand cause-and-effect phenomena based upon measurable factors that exist in the real world, not on imaginary myths and illusions that do not exist.

The real world foundations of science are extremely important. Without them science becomes a fairy tale, an exercise in fiction, a joke, a waste of time, money, and effort.

If science is done by staring at the blank walls of a cubicle in some institution and making up imaginary folk tales without basis in the real world, then it is not science at all.

We pay people to do exactly that, however. We place them in cubicles in institutions and pay them to make stuff up whole cloth, and call it “science”, and to make presentations at conferences in Aspen alongside politicians, and to give off airs as if they were doing real science, and walk around and tell journo-listas that they are scientists, and generally hoax the place up.

Meanwhile forests continue to decline, and the “scientists” have no more of a clue why than your average wino living in a dumpster, who unfortunately does not get paid the big bucks to make up fanciful tales whole cloth. I say unfortunately because your average wino is an expert at delusion, self and otherwise, and would be as good or better at it than your average forest scientist in a cubicle in an institution.

Wait a second, you say, if you’re so smart tell us why forests are declining.

What? For free? On a free blog accessible by anybody (well, perhaps not by the wino in the dumpster)?

For your information, that’s exactly what we have been doing at W.I.S.E. for 3+ years. Maybe you haven’t been paying close attention.

One thing is for sure, we haven’t been offered any paid vacations to Aspen to present non-imaginary facts about forest decline. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with imaginary global warming.

Forest science is not dead. It hangs on in remote locales like W.I.S.E. But it is reeling and gasping for breath in the USFS, the University of Montana, the USGS, and other establishment government institutions.

What those outfits produce is nothing like science. It’s demonstrably false gibberish masquerading as science.

Connaughton Named PNW Regional Forester

US Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell today named Kent Connaughton to replace Mary Wagner as Region 6 (Pacific Northwest Region) Regional Forester. In a letter to USFS top brass Tidwell stated:

I am pleased to announce Kent Connaughton as the new Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region. Kent has served as the Regional Forester for the Eastern Region since 2008.

Prior to his assignment as Regional Forester he was the Associate Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry in Washington, DC. Kent also served as Deputy Regional Forester for the Pacific Southwest Region; Forest Supervisor of the Lassen National Forest; and as a scientist specializing in forest economics at the Pacific Northwest Research Station. He also was responsible for the economic assistance programs associated with the Northwest Forest Plan’s implementation.

Kent holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University, a Master of Forestry degree from Oregon State University, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the Society of American Foresters, and was elected Fellow of that professional society in 1991.

Please join me in congratulating Kent on his new assignment. Kent’s assignment will be effective in mid-April.

- Thomas L. Tidwell, Chief

What Climate Change?

Just the facts, ma’am. — Sgt. Joe Friday

It’s official. Over the last 110 years the net change in January temperatures in the continental U.S. has been zilch, zero, nada.

From the National Climatic Data Center, Climate Services and Monitoring Division, Climate At A Glance [here]

January Temperatures, Contiguous United States, 1901-2011, with average line (average = 30.99 degF).

Note that January temperatures for the last 4 years have been at or below average. In January 2011 the average temperature was 29.97 degF, one degree below the 1901-2011 average. The range in average temperatures during the last 110 years has been + or - 9 degF.

USDA Forest Service Unveils Proposed Planning Rule

to Provide Science-Based Framework to Support Healthy Forests and Communities

Forest Service Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Rule

USDA News Release No. 0061.11, February 10, 2011 [here]

Washington, D.C. - The USDA Forest Service unveiled its proposed Forest Planning Rule today which would establish a new national framework to develop land management plans that protect water and wildlife and promote vibrant communities.

Forest Service land management plans guide management activities on the 155 National Forests and 20 Grasslands in the National Forest System. The proposed planning rule provides a collaborative and science-based framework for creating land management plans that would support ecological sustainability and contribute to rural job opportunities. The proposed rule includes new provisions to guide forest and watershed restoration and resilience, habitat protection, sustainable recreation, and management for multiple uses of the National Forest System, including timber.

“This proposed planning rule seeks to conserve our forests for the benefit of water, wildlife, recreation and the economic vitality of our rural communities,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The proposed rule will provide the tools to the Forest Service to make our forests more resilient to many threats, including pests, catastrophic fire and climate change. Healthy forests and economically strong rural communities form a solid foundation as we work to win the future for the next generation.”

Publication of the proposed planning rule in the Federal Register will kick off a 90-day public comment period, ending May 16. The Forest Service will use comments to develop a final rule. To encourage public engagement, the Forest Service is hosting an open forum to discuss the proposed rule on March 10, 2011, in Washington, D.C. The meeting will be Web cast to allow for national participation, and there will be additional public forums held throughout the country. The proposed rule, meeting information, and additional information: http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule

[more of the News Release here]

Some previous posts on the new planning rule are [here, here, here].

The Truth About Climate Change Open Letter

Open Letter to the United States Congress

February 8, 2011

To view a pdf file of this letter [click here]

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path [click here]). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety [click here].

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels [click here].

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

Signed by [click here]

Ninth Court Drops ‘Federal Defendant’ Rule

In a decision filed January 14, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals abandoned their “federal defendant” rule.

The rule, which had been established in prior court cases, categorically prohibited private parties and state and local governments from intervening in cases and claims brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before the Ninth Circuit Court.

In their Jan 14 decsion the Ninth Court threw that rule out because it is at odds with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and the standards applied by federal judges in all other intervention of right cases.

The case the Court ruled on is The Wilderness Society and Prairie Falcon Audubon, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. the United States Forest Service; Jane P. Kollmeyer; Scott C. Nannenga, Defendants.

The entire text of the decision is [here].

Represented by Intervenors and amicus briefers were the Magic Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho Recreation Council, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, Inc., the Motorcycle Industry Council and Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Coos County, Grant County, Harney County, and Wallowa County of Oregon, the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Croplife America, National Association of Manufacturers, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the Western States Petroleum Association, the Steens Mountain Landowner Group, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Cattlemen’s Public Lands Committee, Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, the Public Lands Council, and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Safari Club International, Southern Nevada Water Authority (Las Vegas, Nevada), Western Urban Water Coalition, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Kalispel Tribe, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Metlakatla Indian Community, the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation, C.L. “Butch” Otter, Governor of Idaho, the State of Alaska, the American Forest Resource Council, the Alaska Forest Association and Douglas Timber Operators (OR).

The opinion, written by Judge Barry G. Silverman on behalf of an eleven judge panel, states:

Today we revisit our so-called “federal defendant” rule, which categorically prohibits private parties and state and local governments from intervening of right on the merits of claims brought under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (”NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. Because the rule is at odds with the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and the standards we apply in all other intervention of right cases, we abandon it here. When construing motions to intervene of right under Rule 24(a)(2), courts need no longer apply a categorical prohibition on intervention on the merits, or liability phase, of NEPA actions. To determine whether a putative intervenor demonstrates the “significantly protectable” interest necessary for intervention of right in a NEPA action, the operative inquiry should be, as in all cases, whether “the interest is protectable under some law,” and whether “there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993). Since the district court applied the “federal defendant” rule to prohibit intervention of right on the merits in this NEPA case, we reverse and remand so that it may reconsider the putative intervenors’ motion to intervene.

This action arises out of the Forest Service’s adoption of a travel plan that designated 1,196 miles of roads and trails for 796 THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY v. USFS use by motorized vehicles in the Minidoka Ranger District of Idaho’s Sawtooth National Forest. Two conservation groups, the Wilderness Society and Prairie Falcon Audubon, Inc., claim that the Forest Service violated NEPA by, among other things, failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and failing to consider reasonable alternatives to the travel plan that would protect certain ecologically sensitive watersheds and wildlife habitats within the District. Their complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating the travel plan, limiting motorized vehicles to previously authorized routes, and prohibiting off-road vehicles from traveling outside designated routes, pending compliance with NEPA and other environmental statutes.

The issue central to this appeal arose when three groups representing recreation interests, the Magic Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho Recreation Council, and Blue Ribbon Coalition, Inc., moved to intervene to counter the conservation groups’ contention that the Forest Service’s plan was too accommodating to users of to users of motorized vehicles. The conservation groups opposed intervention, and the Forest Service took no position on the issue. Applying our Circuit’s “federal defendant” rule, the district court denied intervention of right. The district court also denied permissive intervention on the grounds that the recreation groups had not adequately participated in the administrative process and “would not add any further clarity or insight” to the litigation.

The recreation groups appealed, arguing that the district court erred in failing to consider limited intervention and abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention. They also urged us to consider modifying or eliminating the “federal defendant” rule. A three-judge panel of our court ordered the parties to brief whether the court should review the case en banc to consider abandoning the rule. The recreation groups again urged the court to do so. The conservation groups took no position on the propriety of the rule. We granted en banc review. …

The upshot is that states, counties, and other affected groups and individuals may now intervene when an enviro-litigious group attempts to use the courts and NEPA law to inflict their own twisted policies on federal agencies.

Before this ruling states, counties, and others had to sit on the sidelines while high-paid enviro attorneys argued with US Dept. of Justice attorneys. Very often, terrible rulings were issued that significantly harmed people and entities who were categorically excluded from the courthouse.

“No day in court for you,” said the Ninth Court. But now that (court invented) exclusion from justice has been lifted.

Thank you, Ninth Circuit Court, for lifting ever so slightly your boot heel off the necks of Americans.

By the way, other federal District Courts either don’t recognize the “federal defendant” rule or have yet to confront it.

Also by the way, Obama’s U.S. Justice Dept. opposed lifting the rule. In case you were wondering.

Three Wolves and a Sheep Voting on What to Have For Lunch

By Tom Deweese, American Policy Center, February 1, 2011 [here]

After fighting the radical environmental movement for more than 20 years, I have come to one basic conclusion: the people who understand and care for the environment the least are environmentalists. My experience has shown that the leaders of this once-popular and still powerful force simply use the environment as an excuse to impose a radical, socialist agenda. Meanwhile, the faithful rank and file of the movement believe anything if it is attached to the label “green,” rarely questioning if the statement is true or not.

For example, it is an accepted fact in environmental circles that man is not part of the ecology, only its destroyer. Say the Greens, man’s every action results in damage to the environment and to the plants and animals which are forced to co-exist with him.

Based on that premise, the entire economy of the United States has been transformed to reduce man’s earthbound “footprint,” as human civilization recedes back to that of cave dwellers freezing in the dark. The result is not only a new dark ages for the community of man, but also for the environment.

The anti-human policy says forests must be left alone, never cared for by man. This leaves dead trees to lie on the floor of the forest to rot. Say the environmentalists, this is the natural way. For centuries man has taken care of the forests, clearing out dead wood, improving their ecologic health. No more. The National Forest Service demands that the dead trees stay on the floor, rotting away – in a “natural” habitat.

The fact is, such policy is actually more destructive to the environment. That’s because leaving the dead trees to rot builds up tinder on the floor of the forest. When a forest fire breaks out the fires burn so hot it is nearly impossible to put them out. We’ve all read about how much hotter the fires seem to be today. This is the reason. Moreover, in some cases the floor of the forest is so full of dead and rotting wood that the kindling reaches as high as ten feet, making it nearly impossible for animals to move through it. But that, say the Greens, is the natural, and therefore the right way.

One more thing: the rotting trees bring disease and termites to the other trees, causing more trees to die. In addition, the termites produce about one fourth of the methane that the Greens so fear as a cause of global warming. So, the correct course is clear – clean out the dead trees and make a termite homeless – for the environment. But the Greens refuse to budge to logic.

more »

Irony Update

This item is almost too ludicrous to post. The most tampering Sec DOI ever, the plutocrat who brought us Magic Wilderness, Spotted Foul, Gulf Spoil, Monument-al Surprise, the GloWarm Hoax, Wolf Dodging and countless other bastardizations of pseudoscience, has declared a “scientific integrity” policy. It’s a wonder he didn’t choke on his own doubletalking forked tongue.

Salazar Announces New Scientific Integrity Policy and Designation of Departmental Science Integrity Officer

DOI Press Release, February 1, 2011 [here]

Washington, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced the establishment of a new policy to ensure and maintain the integrity of scientific and scholarly activities used in Departmental decision making. The policy follows on the Memorandum to the Heads of Departments and Agencies on Scientific Integrity issued in December [here] and includes the designation of a Departmental Science Integrity Officer.

“Because robust, high quality science and scholarship play such an important role in advancing the Department’s mission, it is vital that we have a strong and clear scientific integrity policy,” said Secretary Salazar. “This policy sets forth clear expectations for all employees — political and career — to uphold the principles of scientific integrity, and establishes a process for impartial review of alleged breaches of those principles.” … [more]

USFWS Sued Over Spotted Owl Revised Recovery Plan

by Ann Forest Burns, American Forest Resource Council News, January 28, 2011 [here]

FACA Lawsuit

On January 25, AFRC and the Carpenters Industrial Council (CIC), a labor group representing lumber and plywood workers, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Washington, DC challenging the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) failure to follow the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in the work being done to revise the 2008 spotted owl recovery plan and critical habitat designation.

FACA requires advisory committees, that are not composed entirely of federal employees, to be “fairly balanced” in their membership; that they conduct their business in open meetings; and that written records be kept and open to public inspection. There are specific procedures that an agency must go through before an advisory committee can begin to meet.

The FWS has been using two groups that AFRC believes should be placed under FACA: a Primary Modeling Team and a Modeling Advisory Group. These groups have been working since 2009.

On November 10, 2010, AFRC and CIC sent a letter to Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior, asking that FWS remedy the problem and not use the advisory groups in the meantime. At year’s end, AFRC received a response from the FWS Oregon office stating their belief that the groups come under an exemption for “recovery teams” in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The Draft Revised Recovery Plan proposes for the first time going outside federal land for habitat to preserve the owl, but presents no scientific basis to believe this is necessary or will result in increased owl numbers. The modeling being done by these advisory groups has not been shared with other groups, including the timber industry and environmental organizations. There has been no review or critique of the modeling results to date, and because of this AFRC believes it is vital that light be shed on how FWS and these groups are going about their work.

The FWS announced that they intend to release the Final Recovery Plan in mid-February. It is uncertain how much focus will be placed on the impact of the barred owl on spotted owl populations and the risks of catastrophic wildfire and windthrow. These two factors were shown to be the greatest threat to the spotted owl in the 2008 recovery plan.

The lawsuit asks the court the block the FWS from citing or using any of the recommendations made by the two advisory committees.