High Roberts Slideshow
This is a critical time for the future of American forests. In the Pacific Northwest local residents, scientists, recreation groups, homeowners and conservation organizations have been growing increasingly concerned about logging projects that target healthy old-growth forests which have been subject to wildfire. These projects are regularly justified by their proponents as being necessary for forest health, but they ignore the full range of economic benefits that American's receive from their public lands. In some cases, the projects even target healthy forests that are barely touched by fire, and which could independently recover. These projects are pushed forward as if the word "salvage" means making something good out of a bad situation. While the short-term economics are an important consideration, leading forest scientists have stated that post-fire logging is most often a tax on ecological recovery.
The Pacific Northwest's forests contain valuable roadless areas which are needed by at-risk populations of fish and wildlife for survival purposes. The communities in the Pacific Northwest receive a wide range of goods and services from these forest - like clean drinking water and unparalleled hunting and fishing opportunities. While these forests do provide timber, they also provide a broad range of goods and services which are completely independent from the value of logs for the mill.
Under the Healthy Forest Initiative, local land managers are being pushed by political appointees to rush massive post-fire logging projects through. The Crag Law Center has been asked to represent local people who are concerned that these giveaways are unsustainable and scientifically unsound. Public participation is the key to preventing long-term harm to our robust resource-based economy. Scientists have identified the remaining roadless wildlands in Oregon and Washington as key to the survival of native populations of fish and wildlife. These areas provide clean drinking water, as well as critical wildlife corridors for hundreds of species of fish and wildlife. There are many communities of people and animals that depend on them. The nation's environmental laws require that our public land managers maintain these places for future generations and require them to make decisions with scientific integrity.
Post-fire Logging and Academic Freedom at Oregon State UniversityClick here for more information on the controversy surrounding the reaction by Professors and close coordination by Dean Hal Salwasser and his attempt to undermine the work of two OSU graduate students and other scientists and their peer-reviewed post-fire logging study published in SCIENCE.
Founding Principles
The rule of law is a founding principle in the United States Constitution. Many of the nation's bedrock laws were put in place between the 1960s and 1970s to ensure that the public would have a voice in decisions affecting our forests. On behalf of local citizens we seek to enforce the law in court, to mediate disputes and to achieve workable solutions. We have collaborated on smart and prioritized efforts to improve forest health on the ground. Unfortunately, certain interest groups have chosen to polarize these issues and push untenable interpretations of the law, violate requirements for scientific integrity and push forward unsustainable and economically unsound projects in sensitive areas - and the Courts have been called on to intervene. In March of 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision against the Forest Service's decision to pursue a post-fire logging project in the El Dorado National Forest. The Court stated:
"We have noticed a disturbing trend in the USFS’s recent timber-harvesting and timber-sale activities. See, e.g., Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. Austin, 430 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the USFS’s post-fire treatment of old-growth forest stands in the Lolo National Forest violated both the NFMA and NEPA, and that the EIS failed to explain adequately the adverse impacts of the proposed plan on the black-backed woodpecker); Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the USFS because its EIS did not take a “hard look” at past timber harvests or current trout habitat conditions Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (remanding to the district court to enjoin two timber sales approved in violation of the NFMA and NEPA). See also Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, 421 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that the USFS did not properly monitor MIS species and did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives in a proposed timber-harvesting project); Sierra Club v. Eubanks, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (granting a preliminary injunction against salvage logging provided for in the USFS’s post-fire Red Star Restoration Project); Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 199 F. Supp. 2d 971 (N.D. Cal. 2002)(rejecting the USFS’s argument that post-fire salvage burning was needed to prevent a future fire and enjoin implementation of post-fire salvage logging); Colo. Wild v. U.S. Forest Serv., 299 F.Supp.2d 1184 (D. Colo. 2004) (granting a preliminary injunction of a timber salvage project because the USFS failed to gather population data for MIS species); Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (D. N.M. 2001) (reversing authorization of a timber sale in the Cibola National Forest because of the USFS’s failure to collect adequate MIS population data).
It has not escaped our notice that the USFS has a substantial financial interest in the harvesting of timber in the National Forest. We regret to say that in this case, like the others just cited, the USFS appears to have been more interested in harvesting timber than in complying with our environmental laws." (From Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service --- contact the Crag Law Center for a copy)
Historical Perspective on Recent Years
Fire management is not a partisan issue, it affects all communities equally. The legal and scientific issues are complex, and the questions the American public faces are difficult. Yet workable solutions are not out of reach. The Crag Law Center is committed to working with people across the political spectrum to advocate for sound fire management and sustainable forest practices. Truth be told, there were scientifically questionable projects that were moving forward under previous administrations. Currently, the so-called Healthy Forest Initiative is primarily a media effort to use the language of conservation to mask the real objectives that do not sync up with the core message. On top of that, the public is bombarded with the idea that human intervention through the active logging of disturbed areas is the best way to ensure forest heatlh. The science suggests that these actions may actually increase risk of fire and research shows that these actions are frequently a tax on ecological recovery. The initiative sounds good--"healthy forests"---yet the rules that have been pushed through are highly questionable. The regulators are not serving the public interest, and the regulated interests has an Executive Branch that is working to eliminate key parts of your bedrock environmental laws. Many of these new rules have never been considered by legislators, and these rules violate the fundamental laws that define a working democracy.
The rules allow expedited commercial logging and minimize public participation. In many cases, local residents, agency employees and outdoor clubs have grown very concerned. These people believe that it is high-time to protect the last remaining Old Growth forests and preserve the Northwest Forest Plan, the Eastside Screens, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other sustainable forest metrics. The Courts, as in Earth Island have responded by halting illegal projects. The public is learning more about the economic consequences and some local district rangers, who have been empowered to make decisions, are pursuing legitimate fuel reduction projects near homes and communities. Others are attempting to distort or obfuscate the real issues so the public thinks the effort is designed to restore healthy forests. Local residents, landowners, conservation groups, recreation clubs and watershed districts are capable of understanding these complex scientific issues. People desire less controversy, not more, and they are advocating for projects that solve forest health, not aggravate them. In certain cases, the projects target the largest diameter, fire resistant trees. In other cases, local people have found hundreds of live green old growth trees marked for cut as dying.
WHAT IS THE CRAG LAW CENTER IS DOING TO HELP CITIZENS PROTECT THE FORESTS?
The Crag Law Center and volunteer law clerks from Oregon law schools and other schools from across the country work with local citizens, residents, conservation groups, recreation groups and watershed districts to engage public land managers in solutions-oriented approaches. We work with agencys and scientific experts to investigate the impacts of projects on our public lands. We work with local citizens to ensure that public land managers and officials protect American's public heritage. Violations of federal environmental laws are challenging because the agency is typically provided with a large measure of deference. However, there is a persistent tendenacy to push the envelope and there are real limits on that deference. The Crag Law Center is frequently asked to represent local interests in challenges to projects which do not adhere to the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Northwest Forest Plan.
OUR ROLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
-
The Crag Law Center has helped local people successfully challenge ill-conceived and harmful roadbuilding, logging, and development projects in federal court. We have won protections for ten forest regions in Oregon and Washington over the past five years. The Crag Law Center has garnered permanent protection for Flagtail, Timber Basin and Timbered Rock, and won preliminary injunction orders temporarily prohibiting logging in High Roberts and Eyerly. The Crag Law Center has also represented clients in successfully negotiating settlements to protect forests from the Baked Apple, Alpha, Beta and Omega timber sales. The local groups and people we represent have pursued legal action resulting in the Forest Service canceling two additional timber sales, the Polallie-Cooper and Quartz. Our organization helps clients investigate and participate in the public process on many more projects. Through our work to protect the Cascade Peaks, our clients have protected higher alpine flanks and remaining roadless areas on Mt. Hood, Mt. Adams and Mt. Jefferson. Throught that process, and in other forests, we have helped local people pursue collaborative efforts to focus the activities in higher priority areas.
- Think Critically and Get Educated. The key is to get educated and think critically about issues affecting your public forests. Join us or one of our clients on a site visit. We work with local people and our conservation clients to conduct field tours with local residents and scientists in our National Forests to check out projects in advance of implementation. We keep an open mind to solutions and often we review these projects with scientists and forest management experts to verify the information the public receives from the government. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact the organization.
- Contribute to the Crag Law Center - The Crag Law Center represents and works with its clients for free or at a fraction of what it costs us on the open market. We are a non-profit organization. Your individual donations allow us to bring these cases to court and to educate and organize local communities to protect their environments. Your support helps us to ensure sound science. Currently, we are focusing our efforts on community needs - and it is distinctly in the public interest to alter the short-sighted and cynical world view wherein it is acceptable for a few special interests to sell out the national forests! Send contributions to 917 SW Oak, Suite 417, Portland, OR 97205, or click on the link above to make a secure online donation through our website.
- Protect your right to be involved in decisions affecting your public lands, work to hold the decisionmakers accountable. The people that work for and run our federal agencies are not all good nor all bad - the world is not comfortably black and white. These issues are complex, and while there are many upstanding and ethical people in government, others appear to be ill-informed or influenced by external factors towards a betrayal of science and reason. In a number of cases, the actions are simply self-interested actions lacking critical disclosure. There are many fine people in the communities we serve, as well as a robust scientific communinty and many dedicated and hardworking people in our federal agencies. Our organization has hepled local people seek and then find common ground and, when necessary, we have provided legal services to help local people and organizations call decisionmakers to the stage.
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Forest Fires Are a Natural Part of the Ecosytem
The primary problem with the Healthy Forest Initiative is that it primarily consists of rule changes (not approved by Congress) that rush decision making and limit accountability. The rules do not provide meaningful approximations of the reality - in terms of quantifying the impacts on the system and in terms of the economics of the vast range of goods and services that come from our forests. Fire has played a natural and beneficial role in our forests. The 20th century American policies of active forest fire suppression, as well as extensive livestock grazing and commercial logging, have lead to what many have been termed a forest health crisis. Decades of militaristic fire fighting (suppression), intensive logging practices, and harmful grazing practices have created a situation where more than 88 percent of the naturally fire-resistant, old growth trees in the Pacific Northwest have been cut*, and fast-burning fuels such as pine trees less than 10 inches in diameter and exotic invasive annuals and grasses, have grown in their place (*data from the 2002 US Forest Service Resource Planning Act Assessment Report, http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/program-features/rpa/).
While forest products are a legitimate component of the forest and economy of the Pacific Northwest, for the past six years there has been a strong push to move post-fire logging project forward rapidly and without accountability. These projects are based on scientific models that may not bear out if tested in the field, and are conducted on sensitive naturally recovering burned forests in the name of restoration. Proponents of logging in disturbed post-fire landscapes like to paint a picture of a burned forest as a desolate zone that is devoid of all life and in need of human intervention to make it "green and full of life again." Their real purpose is to salvage the economic value. The problem is that this purpose is obscured and the impacts of the project on the environment is ill-considered. When these activities occur in Wildlife Primitive Areas, Old Growth Forests, steep slopes, within fish and animal communities, or near recreational opportunities, local residents get fired up to take action.
Many Oregonians and Washingtonians know that these areas are not devoid of life. When a fire moves through the forest it does not affect each tree equally. Some fires burn intensely while others burn at moderate or low intensity. This differentiation of burning severity is crucial in the evolution of forest ecology. Down logs and snags play a vital role in a forest ecosystem by providing invaluable habitat, contributing to soil health and aiding in the regeneration of the forest. Many tree species show incredible tolerance to fire activity and can survive even when 90% of the crown has been burned. Fire affected trees also hold large amounts of water that may aid in reducing the risk of a future fire. Science simply does not support the effort to use the term "salvage" logging as being beneficial to forest health.
Catastrophic Propaganda
Growing numbers of people believe the public is being misled into supporting increased logging in the name of "fuel reduction projects." While the health of America's public forests is pressing and urgent, the real danger is not forest fire. The real danger is the lasting damage Americans will do to our forests if science and accountability are taken out of decisions on your federal lands. There are instances where the Forest Service or the BLM is willing to respond to local residents who wish to implement a forest policy that reflects sound science. Past projects and science tell us that thinning is not a panacea, and especially when driven by large-scale commercial interests, it is not the way for us to improve forest health. Americans will lose the integrity of some of the last remaining public forests if that is the approach that is chosen.
Protecting Homes & Communities
The increased proximity between homes and forestland has created a situation where rural homes are at great risk when fire breaks out. However, scientific studies have shown that the most important factor in determining the susceptibility of a home to burn is the existence of trees within close proximity to the home. Statistics show that so long as certain fire reduction guidelines are followed by homeowners, the risk for damage to homes during a fire occurrence is very low. Jack D. Cohen, a scientist working for the Forest Service has written studies documenting the risk reduction of home ignitability. Cohen has concluded that remote thinning projects can do little to protect homes from wildfire. Instead, he recommends that the only way to reduce the risk is to remove trees near homes. The current administration's Healthy Forest Initiative projects have over-ridden the will of local residents in Oregon and Washington to encourage projects that will actually complete these measures. Instead, local residents have been growing alarmed at the the focus that is being placed on logging remote areas within Old growth stands that have never previously been logged. These actions will likely have little effect on the protection of homes from fire.
Help us continue to provide our services by donating with our secure giving service
Copyright © 2001 - 2008 Cascade Resources Advocacy Group