Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-27-2020 Public Comment - N. Ostle Email Thread - Bozeman Municipal Watershed logging projectFrom:Chris Mehl To:Agenda Subject:Fw: {Bozeman Broadband} Fwd: EQC meeting on WSAs Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:17:52 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png image003.pngimage004.png Please share with CC and staff. It's from USFS and came to my personal account b/c a person wrote me on it and the agency replied to that. From: Erickson, Mary C -FS <mary.erickson@usda.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:14 PM To: Nancy Ostlie <nancyostlie@gmail.com>; DeLuca, Tom <tom.deluca@mso.umt.edu>; Chris Mehl <mehlchris@hotmail.com>; Lewellen, Corey R -FS <corey.lewellen@usda.gov> Subject: RE: {Bozeman Broadband} Fwd: EQC meeting on WSAs Hello Nancy. I’m not sure what you’re thinking in terms of negotiating adjustments to the BMW project. Irealize there are differing viewpoints and knowledge levels about the project itself. We are alwaysinterested to hear people’s thoughts. We aren’t able to negotiate agreements with select groups outside ofthe public NEPA process. As I’m sure you are aware, this went through a rigorous public environmental analysis process, with manymeetings and field tours, a Draft EIS, Final EIS and decision with opportunities for the public to weigh in ateach step of the way. The decision was followed by years in the court process – with the Court recentlyupholding the Forest Service’s analysis. Most of the concerns being raised now were considered in theenvironmental analysis. We do recognize that some folks are new to the area or never paid attention to theproject before this time. Are you hoping to discuss specific changes that you believe fit within the existing analysis and decision? Corey Lewellen, Bozeman District Ranger, would be happy to give you a call to discuss this further. Thanks for reaching out. Mary Mary C Erickson Forest Supervisor Forest Service Custer Gallatin National Forest p: 406-587-6949 f: 406-587-6758 mary.erickson@usda.gov 10 East Babcock Bozeman, MT 59718www.fs.fed.us Caring for the land and serving people From: Nancy Ostlie <nancyostlie@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 3:21 PM To: DeLuca, Tom <tom.deluca@mso.umt.edu>; Chris Mehl <mehlchris@hotmail.com>; Erickson, Mary C -FS <mary.erickson@usda.gov> Subject: Fwd: {Bozeman Broadband} Fwd: EQC meeting on WSAs Dear Tom, Chris and Mary, I am forwarding the messages we have sent to our Broadband group to look for members who want to work on negotiating some adjustments to the BMW project. We hope to work together with you to get more support from the community for a project that, as proposed, will likely be a nasty surprise when it gets going. Perhaps there are alternatives such as making arrangements for drawing on the Gallatin River or East Gallatin temporarily in the event of a severe wildfire. We are looking into the capabilities of the new water treatment facility, and contingency plans for dealing with a flood or fire. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Nancy Ostlie Great Old Broads for Wilderness 406-556-8118 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Nancy Ostlie <nancyostlie@gmail.com> Date: Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:12 PM Subject: Re: {Bozeman Broadband} Fwd: EQC meeting on WSAs To: Bozeman Broadband <bozeman-broadband@googlegroups.com> Some science cited by locals Norm Bishop and others about why the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project should be revised to reflect our current knowledge: Mary: I find it hard to imagine that you can stick to the timeworn paradigm of timber harvest as the solution for forest health and watershed integrity. Over the past several years I’m sure I have sent you a dozen or more peer-reviewed articles that plainly show the futility and counterproductive nature of thinning. I’m reminded of the old saying, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Logging and the disturbance that comes with it is obviously destructive to numerous forest resources, and increases carbon emissions, not to mention reducing a forest’s capacity to sequester carbon. The latter may be the most valuable use of our national forests, particularly where mature forests persist. Logging roads are plainly destructive to forested ecosystems. After the fires of 1988 (I was there), there were no disastrous fish kills or long term damage to water quality. There is no justification in my mind for cutting trees anywhere but within a short radius around structures. For review, here are several snippets from papers on this topic that I hope you will consider seriously before going against the advice given young physicians: “First, do no harm.” Norman A. Bishop The clear majority of all acreage burned annually is the result of a few wildfires. These largehigh-severity wildfires burn under “extreme” fire weather conditions of high temperatures, lowhumidity, drought, and high winds. Without those ingredients, fires remain small and easilycontrolled. For instance, a total of 56,320 fires burned over 9 million acres in the Rocky Mountainsbetween 1980-2003. 98% of these fires (55,220) burned less than 500 acres and accounted for 4%of the area burned. By contrast, Only, 2% of all fires accounted for 96% the acreage burned. And0.1% (50) of blazes were responsible for half of the acres charred. (Baker 2009 Fire Ecology inRocky Mountain Landscapes). HOW EFFECTIVE IS THINNING FORESTS AT REDUCING LARGE HIGH SEVERITYFIRES? In a letter to the U.S. Senate, 262 professional scientists, from University of Montana biologiststo Texas botanists, protested expediting salvage logging: "Not only do these legislative proposals misrepresent scientific evidence on the importance ofpost-fire wildlife habitat and mature forests to the nation, they also ignore the current state ofscientific knowledge about how such practices would degrade the ecological integrity of forestecosystems on federal lands." EFFECTS OF SALVAGE LOGGING ON FIRERISKS AFTER BARK BEETLE OUTBREAKS INCollins et al. 2012 Fuel Dynamics in Harvested andUntreated Beetle-Killed StandsSalvage logging increased the totalmass of woody surface fuels 2.7times compared with untreatedstands following salvage logging(17.6 versus 47.8 Mg ha-1).Harvesting increased the mass offine (i.e., less than 7.6 cm in diameter)and sound (coarse 7.6 cm indiameter or greater) fuels 3.3- and3.5-fold compared with untreatedstands, respectively. Recently more than 200 preeminent scientists signed a letter to Congress finding that proposedsolutions to wildfire like thinning forests are ineffective and short-lived. https://www.forestlegacies.org/images/scientist-letters/scientist-letter-wildfire-signers-2018-08-27_1.pdf To quote from the scientists’ letter: “Thinning is most often proposed to reduce fire risk and lower fire intensity…However, as the climate changes, most of our fires will occur duringextreme fire-weather (high winds and temperatures, low humidity, low vegetation moisture).These fires, like the ones burning in the West this summer, will affect large landscapes,regardless of thinning, and, in some cases, burn hundreds or thousands of acres in just a fewdays.” The letter goes on to say: “Thinning large trees, including overstory trees in a stand, canincrease the rate of fire spread by opening up the forest to increased wind velocity, damagesoils, introduce invasive species that increase flammable understory vegetation, and impactwildlife habitat.” Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes Tania Schoennagela,1, Jennifer K. Balcha,b, Hannah Brenkert-Smithc, Philip E. Dennisond, Brian J. Harveye, Meg A. Krawchukf, Nathan Mietkiewiczb, Penelope Morgang, Max A. Moritzh, Ray Raskeri, Monica G. Turnerj,and Cathy Whitlockk,l Limiting Reliance on Fuels Treatments to Alter Regional Fire Trends. Managing forest fuels is often invoked in policy discussions as a means of minimizing the growing threat of wildfire to ecosystems and WUI communities across the West. However, the effectiveness of this approach at broad scales is limited. Mechanical fuels treatments on USfederal lands over the last 15 y (2001–2015) totaled almost 7 million ha(Forests and Rangelands, https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/), butthe annual area burned has continued to set records. Regionally, thearea treated has little relationship to trends in the area burned, which isinfluenced primarily by patterns of drought and warming (2, 3, 20).Forested areas considerably exceed the area treated, so it is relativelyrare that treatments encounter wildfire (73). For example, in agreementwith other analyses (74), 10% of the total number of US Forest Serviceforest fuels treatments completed 2004–2013 in the western UnitedStates subsequently burned in the 2005–2014 period (Fig. 6). Therefore, roughly 1% of US Forest Service forest treatments experience wildfire each year, on average. The effectiveness of forest treatments lasts about 10–20 y (75), suggesting that most treatments have little influence on wildfire. Implementing fuels treatments is challenging and costly (7, 13, 76, 77); funding for US Forest Service hazardous fuels treatments totaled $3.2 billion over the 2006–2015 period Gedalof, Z., D. L. Peterson, and N. J. Mantua. 2005. Atmospheric, climatic, and ecological controls onv www.esajournals.org 21 November 2012 v Volume 3(11) v Article 103 HOLZ ET AL. extremewildfire years in the northwestern United States. Ecological Applications 15:154–174 “fuel treatments ….cannot realistically be expected to eliminate large area burned in severe fire weatheryears. “ Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forestedecosystems of the interior western United States Reinhardt et al. 2008 “Extreme environmental conditions . .overwhelmed most fuel treatment effects. . . This included almostall treatment methods including prescribed burning and thinning. . .. Suppression efforts had littlebenefit from fuel modifications.” The Congressional Research Service (CRS) :. “ From a quantitative perspective, the CRS study indicates a very weak relationship betweenacres logged and the extent and severity of forest fires. … the data indicate that fewer acresburned in areas where logging activity waslimited.” https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/01/us/fires-not-caused-by-reduced-logging- congressional-report-finds.html Lyle Laverty, USDA Forest Service and Tim Hartzell U.S. Department of the Interior“A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000”, September 8, 2000.http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/hfi/president.pdf“Qualitative analysis by CRS supports the same conclusion. The CRS stated: "[T]imberharvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into woodproducts, but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles. The concentrationof these fine fuels on the forest floor increases the rate of spread of wildfires." Similarly, theNational Research Council found that logging and clearcutting can cause rapid regeneration ofshrubs and trees that can create highly flammable fuel conditions within a few years of cutting.Without adequate treatment of small woody material, logging may exacerbate fire risk ratherthan lower it.” Testimony of Norman L. Christensen, Jr., Ph.D., Beforethe Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestryregarding H.R. 1904—the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003June 26, 2003http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/fire/hr_1904_testimony_christensen.pdf --“Why isn’t it true that ‘the more wood removed the better’? Why should ‘big, old’ trees beretained? First, larger-diameter woody materials do not pose a significant threat for wildfireignition or spread. It is largely the finer fuels (a few inches and less in diameter) that carry fire.More important, large, old trees actually provide protection from fire spread because they areresistant to fire and their shade maintains favorable moisture conditions in the understory fuels.Too much thinning of the forest canopy can produce more rapid drying of such fuels and,thereby, more frequent and severe wildfire risk. Furthermore, big, old trees provide criticalhabitat and maintain key ecosystem functions.” Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forestedecosystems of the interior western United States Reinhardt et al. 2008 “…it is the treatment of the fuels immediately proximate to the residences, and the degree to which theresidential structures themselves can ignite that determine if the residences are vulnerable.” Fire severity unaffected by spruce beetle outbreak in spruce-fir Forests in southwestern Colorado Robert A. Andrus,1,3 Thomas T. Veblen,1 Brian J. Harvey,2 and Sarah J. Hart1 Contrary to the expectation that bark beetle infestation alters subsequent fire severity, correlation andmultivariate generalized linear regression analysis revealed no influence of pre-fire spruce beetleseverity on nearly all field or remotely sensed measurements of fire severity. In comparison to severity of the pre-fire beetle outbreak, we found that topography, pre-outbreak basalarea, and weather conditions exerted a stronger effect on fire severity. Dead forests burning: the influence of beetle outbreaks on fire severity and legacy structure in sub-boreal forests ANNA C. TALUCCI AND MEG A. KRAWCHUK trees. We found no evidence of a relationship between outbreak severity and fire severity for six ofseven first-order fire effects, with the exception of deep charring. We found evidence that legacystructure in the form of consumed branch structure and deep char development had greater odds ofoccurrence on MPB-killed snags compared to trees killed during wildfire. Our results indicate two keyfindings. First, fire severity as it relates to most first-order fire effects measures is not influenced byoutbreak severity, instead it is more strongly influenced by the interaction of fuels, weather, andtopography during fire events. MARTIN SIMARD,1,3 WILLIAM H. ROMME,2 JACOB M. GRIFFIN,1 AND MONICA G. TURNER Although it is often presumed that bark beetle outbreaks increase probability of active crown fire byproducing high loads of surface and canopy dead fuels, empirical data are scarce and results areambivalent…. Modeling results suggested that undisturbed, red, and gray-stage stands were unlikely to exhibit transition of surface fires to tree crowns (torching), and that the likelihood of sustaining anactive crown fire (crowning) decreased from undisturbed to gray-stage stands Odion et al. (2004) (Conservation Biology), conducted in a 98,814-hectare area burned in 1987 in theCalifornia Klamath region, found that the most fire-suppressed forests in this area (areas that had notburned since at least 1920) burned at significantly lower severity levels, likely due to a reduction incombustible native shrubs as forests mature and canopy cover increases: “The hypothesis that fire severity is greater where previous fire has been long absent wasrefuted by our study…The amount of high-severity fire in long-unburned closed forests was the lowestof any proportion of the landscape and differed from that in the landscape as a whole (Z = -2.62, n = 66,p = 0.004).” Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent‐fire forests of thewestern United States? Curtis M. Bradley Chad T. Hanson Dominick A. DellaSala —Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent -fire forests of thewestern United States? This study concludes that Western frequent-fire forests, including Southwestern forests, with thehighest levels of protection from logging tend to burn least severely—logging defined to include theremoval of small trees for fuel reduction. —“Fire Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. PublicForests" Rhodes and Baker Study concludes there is a very low probability of a thinned site actually encountering a fire during thenarrow window when tree density is lowest. -- George Werther On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:49 PM Nancy Ostlie <nancyostlie@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Broadband, I want to introduce one of the Broadband's most dynamic members: Nancy Schultz. As a former second grade teacher, she knows what to do if your first plan doesn't work -- adapt! Keep things moving. She is always ready with ideas and suggestions on how we can work together. Thanks for being broadtastic! Nancy put together the materials below to make it easy for anyone to speak up to elected leaders at a critical time. If you value wilderness, make your voice heard as the legislature proposes that Wilderness Study Areas in Montana be dissolved, or minimized in favor of uses not permitted in Wilderness. Secondly, would you be part of a committee to study alternatives to the Bozeman Municipal Watershed logging project? We have 3-4 interested people, and some funds, and want a group to plan ways to influence the extent of the impacts. There is new science since 2011, and we want to bring it to bear by communicating with the city and the Forest. Please reply by May 27 if you want to be involved, and a zoom call can be arranged between those interested. Happy Memorial Day to all! Nancy Ostlie Volunteer Leader, Great Old Broads for Wilderness Bozeman Broadband 406-556-8118 greatoldbroads.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Nancy Schultz <nancyanaconda@msn.com> Date: Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:51 PM Subject: EQC meeting on WSAs Attached is background material that the legislative services has put together for the EQC meeting May 28th . the WSA session is from 1-3. The focus of this committee is SJ0020; A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA REQUESTING AN INTERIM STUDY OF CERTAIN WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS IN MONTANA TO CONVENE STAKEHOLDERS, DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING, AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS. Nancy O and I went to the last committee meeting on WSAs, the attached article sums it up. Here is what we can do Participate virtually, the directions are attached Email the council, Joe Kolman said that if we email our comments, he will distribute them to the members. If you want to contact members, that is ok, their info is on the eqc website. One member from our area is Pat Flowers 580 0035, Pat.Flowers@mtleg.gov another is JP Pomnichowski 587 7846 pomnicho@gmail.com I would love for us to present to this committee, not sure how to do it, but maybe Pat or JP could give us some insight or make a request. The title says they want to convene stakeholders-what about us? Nancy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gallatin-Yellowstone Wilderness Alliance" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gallatin-yellowstone- wilderness-alliance+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gallatin-yellowstone- wilderness- alliance/CY4PR07MB2758EE6C6302F8229DC804FEB7B40%40CY4PR07MB2758.namprd07.prod.outlook.com. -- Great Old Broads for Wilderness (Broads) is a national grassroots organization, led by women, that engages and inspires activism to preserve and protect wilderness and wild lands. Learn more and become a member at www.greatoldbroads.org. To unsubscribe, please email broads@greatoldbroads.org. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bozeman Broadband" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bozeman- broadband+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bozeman- broadband/CAJSndkK_FG_nZrmc%3Dnv9Pm8cTG-qLT2jbWZPdyyhRPKkVef04g%40mail.gmail.com. This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients.Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it containsmay violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you havereceived this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.