Timber harvest non-compliance

The PA SGL has NO authority to carry out its mission by increasing our risk of fire loss. It has a myriad of techniques at its disposal--it can NOT pick the technique that puts us in danger of a catastrophic forest fire. It simply is not authorized to LESSEN our health, safety, and welfare.

I posted the pix of BLOCK 2's timber harvest results. They are at http://picasaweb.google.com/viragogretna/Block2TimberHarvestResults#


Here is the page of the timber harvest contract for that block:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNjU0ZjE1ODAtNWExYi00ZmZkLThhNTEtNTkyZmE0MGE0NzY5&hl=en

(no spaces in the url)

It specifies the number of trees to remain standing, the number of den trees to remain, and the number of snags. The general terms of the contract also specify reseeding requirements and compliance with state environmental laws, including erosion and sedimentation control. Here is a comparison of the numbers on the contract against what is actually out there today:

approx 70 reserved trees (contract calls for 153)

approx 6 snags (contract calls for 44)

approx, oh, maybe a couple hundred den trees (contract calls for less than 20)


And here is the state's erosion and sedimentation control law that the State Game Land and the timber harvester are required to follow:

http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-65564/363-2134-008.pdf


This law is known as "Chap 102" , and can be found at 35 P.S. §691.1 and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102 & 102.1.

Via a Delegation Agreement with the State's DEP, our county's conservation office is contracted to enforce and investigate the SGL's and the harvester's compliance with the law. However, after submitting two written requests to the Lebanon County Conservation Office to investigate compliance with Chap 102, their director has failed to respond. Thus, the LCC Office clearly appears to be failing its Delegation Agreement. This is something the DEP would like to know about--an agency not working its delegation agreement. They can be contacted at 717-783-7577.

And, here is the State Game Land's mission:

Sec. 322. Powers and duties of commission.
(a) Duties. - It shall be the duty of the commission to protect, propagate, manage and preserve the game or wildlife of this Commonwealth and to enforce, by proper actions and proceedings, the laws of this Commonwealth relating thereto. (See http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=478&Q=150972#322)
There is nothing in their enabling legislation that forces them to use any specific technique, and there is certainly nothing in their enabling legislation that allows them to pile fuel behind our homes.

More non-enforcement of PA GC timber contract

What is the Game Commission doing on that land behind us!?

On the blocks that were harvested recently on our neighboring game lands, over 800 trees were to be spared from harvesting, according to the harvest contract. These trees were marked with red paint at eye level on the up and downhill side of the tree, and at the base. In the contract, these trees are called "reserved trees."

However, as you can see just by driving by some of these harvested blocks, there is NOT any number close to 800 trees left on these blocks. On the two blocks that follow Pinch Road, there are supposed to be 360 of these reserved trees. What do you think there really is there now?

In case you would like to check this for yourself, I have included a map of the blocks for this harvest, and the numbers of reserved trees that should be still standing. I broke the numbers down by block.

Block 1 should have 114 reserved trees, marked with red paint. That is the block right behind us that has all the large woody debris left behind.

Block 2 should have 153 reserved trees, marked with red paint.

Block 3 --197

Block 4--144 This block is across from the smashed port-a-potty on Pinch Road.

Block 5--215 This block is the next harvested block on Pinch Road, and abuts Block 4.

Let me end this post with the reminder that the PA GC holds those lands in public trust FOR US and in the pursuit of its assigned responsibility: providing game and wildlife habitat.

If anyone wants a copy of the contracts for this harvest, just email me at viragogretna@gmail.com. Also, I will be walking the blocks to take an inventory this week. Let me know if you would like to join me-I would love the company.

It also appears as if our neighbor Weaber, Inc. was the contracted harvester for this mess. Also, I have visited some other game lands recently harvested by other contractors, and they look like the contractor actually did use forestry's best practice standards and complied with the terms of the contract.

Letter to local conservation office

Has anyone gotten any real data on the amount of regeneration occurring in that block?

Pasted below is a copy of my recent letter to our local conservation agency.
My two basic contentions in my response are that:

1. Government officials responding to our concerns have acknowledged a fire hazard risk on that block. But by denying the new presence of large amounts of fuel, they are unilaterally assigning us the burden of the increased risk of catastrophic loss.

2. The Game Commission has a limited mission in its service to the residents of the Commonwealth, and, via their enforcement of these timber harvesting contracts, they are either failing or are acting outside their mission of providing game and habitat.

Here's my actual letter:

Hello,

Thank you for following up on my initial contact with you.

I find Henry's response to be incredulous and non-responsive. Given the size of the logs left behind, I ask Henry to provide a 3rd party inventory and measurement data on the regeneration that is occurring in that block--as I suggest that the actual numbers will be egregiously low given the diameter and numbers of large logs and such piles.

Further, I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that the actual regeneration occuring there, as minimal as it may be, conforms with their regeneration plan for that area. Maybe you have an email address for him, and you will forward him my response?

More importantly, is it your response or Henry's that the risk of fire is low because of the wet summer that we have experienced? Please allow me to point out that that government official's response acknowledges the present risk of fire hazard, yet attempts to mitigate it by using mother nature's graceful provision of much rain this summer.

The response further acknowledges that there is a risk of lightning strike in that area, but mitigates the risk by suggesting that historical strikes have never produced a known fire. Please understand that that is our point as well--except that our concern acknowledges the new presence of large amounts of fuel. Your (or Henry's) response does not. Why is it, that in all of the government generated responses to our concern, nobody has acknowledged the actual slash on that block, and nobody has provided data to show that the actual amount there conforms with industry practices, organizational practices, or with the timber contract and enforcement practices? Could it be because the actual amount does NOT conform?

Let's be clear about our assumptions: "risk" is an affirmative number suggesting the likelihood of an event occurring--AN AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER. By definition, it precludes the possibility of forever eliminating the occurence of the event.

Here, it is apparent that we all agree that a risk of fire exists on the block and that the weather has been particularly helpful to us in reducing that risk. We also all may agree that we DISAGREE as to the level of risk--Mt. Gretna property owners acknowledge the new presence of large amounts of fuel, while no one from our local or state governments has acknowledged the significantly increased risk of catastrophic fire presented by the actual slash on that block. This is very disturbing to many of us.

So, it seems that local government officials want us to believe that large diameter slash presents no increased risk of catastrophic fire. However, I dare say that there is no licensed forester, probably throughout the U.S., that will deny the increased and enduring risk of catastrophic fire when the slash of this size and amount is left after a harvest operation in this type of forest. So why is a government organization allowed to put us in that kind of risk--at an increased risk of a catastrophic fire? Does Henry have arrangments for moist weather with mother nature for next year? or the year after? or the decade after?

And, given Henry's passive denial about this "catastrophic fire" fuel, how does he explain the existence of that thing called a "fire watch tower" just across Pinch Road from this block of forest? I am sure our previous generations would have experienced no comfort, as we aren't, from his responses.

Another assumption is that the Game Commission is an entity that was "born" to serve the residents of the Commonwealth, as the local conservation office was created to serve county residents. As such, the Commission's responsibility is solely to us. By its own failures on this block, it is extremely difficult to see how the Commission is fulfilling its mission of providing game and habit for us. No animals of any significant size can even traverse the block it is so obstructed with harvest debris!

The reality is that this government organization is acting with the brazen attitude of a Chevron in some South American country, extracting the profit from our common resources, leaving behind an ecosystem significantly damaged by human intervention, and leaving the locals at increased risk of certain life-threatening and property damaging catastrophies. Just what point is the game commission trying to make to its abutting property owners when it allows one contractor to leave the un-merchantable large diameter "fuel" slash, and enforces the timber contract and best practice standards on all other nearby contractors EXCEPT the one abutting Mt. Gretna homes?

It is of no relief to abutting property owners that it appears to be a relatively small area impacted by this slash. And, absolutely no hard evidence has been given to us to support the repeated statements of government officials that "there is nothing to worry about." In fact, the physical evidence on that block contradicts these "official" representations of the conditions of that block. Thus, local residents are growing increasingly frustrated by these "vaporous" statements being thrown back at us.

Show us the unbiased data, and maybe from there our conversation can reach mutual agreement as to the risk and who is assigned that risk.

Further, in reference to your response, as should be apparent, it is not the large logs "starting" a fire that we are worried about, as your response suggests. It is their contribution as large amounts of fuel to a fire that may get started in a whole myriad of ways. There is still an abundance of other ignitable material on that block (as with the other blocks). And, fire-suppressing regeneration will be egregiously hampered on that block as the large piles of large logs will remain present for years to come. Further, as regeneration is hampered, limited presence of new root structures will contribute to soil erosion on that block.

Lastly, what possible regeneration plan and site preparation technique are actually being used here? The Game Commission made a lot of assertions about its plan and techniques on this block (and the others nearby). Yet, the Commission has provided NO physical evidence of actual engagement in their own stated plan or methods. In fact, the pictures of this block again provide evidence CONTRADICTING their asserted "plan." And, as the local conservation agency, why is this not a concern of your organization?

END

A federal government issued Practice Standard regarding Slash

The government office called the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which also has a PA central office in Harrisburg, issued a Practice Standard regarding slash.
Mt. Gretna's nuisance lot violates almost every suggested criteria or consideration given in that two-page publication.
You can find it yourself at
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/384.pdf

In fact,this office is within the USDA, and the resources conservation coordinator for our area can be reached at:
john.metrick@pa.usda.gov

The PA NRCS website is http://www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov/

Pictures of slash presenting fire hazard to Mt. Gretna

As you look at these pictures, I ask you to think about two things:

First, please compare this slash with the slash left on the harvested blocks that are easily visible from Pinch Road and State Road 117. Notice the size, or diameter of the trunks of the wood left behind, notice the arrangement of the slash and its piles, and notice the size of the slash piles themselves.

Second, please look at the size of the wood left behind in the nuisance block. Also note the continuity of these slash piles--as they seem to go on for the length area of the nuisance block.

For comparison, here are some photos of the slash left behind on the SR 117 harvested block, on the other side of Mt. Gretna:

The west end of the 117 block:

The east end of the 117 block:
A closer view of one side of the harvested block that abuts the homes of several Mt. Gretna residents, aka nuisance block:


A larger view of the overall block:

A view of the other side of the nuisance block:

In all honesty, in all of my experience with forestry in the Maine woods, I have never seen a harvester leave a block in this condition. Never. And, I have never heard any official try to convince anyone those conditions were forestry's "best practices." Never.

It is clear that this wood provided the contractor with little merchantable wood, given the multi-branched trunks and their lack of straightness, and, therefore, he deemed it not a good business choice to spend any money or time hauling it out or chipping it, and calculated that no one would see it from Pinch Road and be concerned about it. He probably also relied on lax enforcement of the contract, and of forestry's true best practices, by the PA GC.

Even though the PA GC has stated that the purposes of the harvest were to salvage dying trees and to create feeding habitat for deer, after seeing the huge slash piles up there you have to ask yourself:

1. how are trees to be planted on this block, and how is any vegetation to grow there,

2. how is game--especially a large mammal, to traverse that block, and

3. how long will that fuel take to decompose, given its large size.

Given the current condition of this block, it is extremely difficult to see where the latter goal is being pursued, suggesting that the harvest was really pursued to generate revenue.

Further, the harvesting contract requires that the contractor not damage trees marked to remain, and to complete all terms of the contract before getting his bond back and being allowed to harvest any other blocks. A closer inspection of trees remaining on all these blocks reveals significant damage from the harvesting, in addition to the slash/fire hazard issue here. However, a PA GC officer stated Friday that they consider the contract closed and, ergo, the contractor is able to get his bond back and to trash and threaten some other shmuck's backyard.

forestry's "best practices"

At the recent Chautauqua annual meeting, Mount Gretna Borough's Chuck Alwein responded to members' concerns about the seemingly abundant amount of wood "fuel" (or "slash") left behind by the Pennsylvannia Game Land's timber harvester. He assured us that they used "best practices."

So, I did a little research of forestry best practices. Here is what I found.

"Best Management Practices for Pennsylvania Forests" (by Chinko and Wolf)
BMP #6, on page 29 states:

"6. Use as much of the harvested wood as possible to minimize debris."

and BMP #5 on page 20:

"5. Consider the effects of planned activities on surrounding properties."

Then I went to the bible of silvicultural practices, David M. Smith's "The Practice of Silviculture" ["Silviculture" is the term for the art of producing and tending a forest.]

On page 222, Mr. Smith emphasizes that site-preparation may be the most crucial consideration given the type of regeneration planned. Here, in Mount Gretna, the PA Game Commission has repeatedly stated that it is going to replant thousands of trees. For this plan, Mr. Smith states "slash disposal is very often done to reduce the physical impediments to hand or machine planting." page 224

It seems fairly obvious that, given the size and amount of slash left behind our little village, that physically moving through the area to plant anything is near impossible, as well as dangerous. Further, the egregious amount of slash left behind also suggests that site-prep activities have really not be conducted--how could they be? Perhaps there was no plan for site prep. Perhaps the harvester is not done yet...

More importantly, on page 223, Smith states

"most slash disposal is still applied primarily to reduce the potential fuel for forest fires"

(citing Brown and Davis, 1973, Chandler et al, 1983, andPyne, 1984). He further states

"Slash is a fire hazard because it represents an unusually large volume of fuel; it is often so distributed that it dangerously impedes construction of fire lines...

Mr. Alwhein further comforted us by alleging that our fire risk is lower now that a fire can't spread from tree top to tree top behind our little village. Here is what Mr. Smith has to say about that:

"Fires on cutover areas almost invariably start and spread in the litter of the old forest floor."...Page 224, and:

"the greatest menace exists during the ...period in which the foliage and small branchlets remain on the slash; they are readliy ignited and burn rapidly....[W]hen conditions are favorable to very hot fires, the size of [large] units of fuel is no longer a factor limiting the rate at which a fire will spread....[F]ires can burn rapidly in large concentrations of slash and may 'blow up' into well-nigh uncontrollable conflagrations." page 223


Well, given that lightening is known to favor striking right where all this slash is piled up, that there are plenty of humans out there every day--some of them even smoking, and that there is plenty of duff and "small branchlets" up there drying out in the unfettered sunshine, whose take on things should we err towards?