proceedures for harvest on USFS?
Joe
"cutting plans" which must be filed prior to most timber harvesting on all
land, public and private. The question came up, what sort of cutting plans
are required for USFS timber harvests? It was suggested by one person that a
great deal of preparation and study is necessary. Do any of you have a list
of the procedures?
Joe
mhagen
That's ex- USFS Foresters. I don't think anybody here is currently
employed by them. They have different but equivalent plans to most big
private timber companies. You first plan your yearly harvest, then for
each individual unit, you have to cruise, map, do NEPA compliance, then
appraise (usually two different ways), write your contract, advertise,
then manage the sale, then close it out and finish all the accounting.
The stage after advertising may go on through several loops as sales
get appealed and changed. A private individual who's working under a
typical forest practice permit has a much easier job.
Joe
species, archeology, etc.? What experts are brought in beyond the foresters?
Joe
"mhagen" <mha...@nospamolympus.net> wrote in message
news:XvmdncCDieMbZdbU...@posted.olypeninternet...
mhagen
needed an ologist to lay out a big timber sale. The procedure used to
be that your local District wildlife biologist would check all timber
sales for red flags. Now its all on the GIS system- streams, owls,
eagles nests, unstable slopes, etc. Wetlands generally are NOT covered-
theres a specific exception in the federal clean water rules for timber
harvest.
If you're going to be too close to anything vital, you call in the
experts. If you must push the envelope, an EA or even an EIS may be
needed. On the whole, timber sales get a very thorough vetting before
they're ever advertised.
Joe
"tree huggers" or whatever- who often sue- on what grounds can they sue? Is
it because the USFS fails to follow the rules, or are those problems history
now?
Joe
"mhagen" <mha...@nospamolympus.net> wrote in message
news:4YadnZ_k6cFS29HU...@posted.olypeninternet...
Larry Harrell
may have covered the areas previously, or not. Every sale has to be
surveyed for endangered species and if a historical nest stand is
nearby, a survey has to be done to see if that nest exists anymore or
is occupied. Hydrologists are consulted when any stream crossings will
be needed but, the USFS generally avoids water issues. Most timber
sales around here are fuels reductions, rather than "timber sales".
The Forest Service is at a bad time where rules, laws and policies are
hamstringing them in court. Cutting prescriptions have become quite
complex to deal with all those limitations. Implementing such rules
with a less than educated workforce results in work on the ground not
matching the plans. Most of the time it's piddly little rules like a
marked tree that is only 97 feet from a streamcourse, instead of over
100 feet. Usually though, it's an interpretation of a broad rule that
ends up in court.
One of the biggest problems is the definition of old growth. The eco's
claim there's sooooo little left but yet, they will appeal and
monkeywrench every timber sale on the grounds that the Feds are
cutting the old growth. This will be a sticking point in the future of
our public forests. Their ideological dogma drama says "Thou shalt not
cut a merchantable tree". They would surely rather see it burn than to
let someone cut a tree for profit. Sadly, this is a no-win situation
for everyone except the eco-lawyers and the let-burn firefighters.
It's all too easy to win on just a single item in court, blocking the
beneficial thinning project and getting the court costs paid, while
thumbing their noses at the "Man".
The disaster is here and the Obama solution is to do nothing as the
forests disappear into CO2-laden smoke. Yes, we CAN eliminate man from
our forests.
Larry