Water

Both-Sides Reporting on New Clean Water Act Rule- Let’s Collect Them!

by
Navigable waters? What would EPA have decided?

While the Clean Water Act isn’t usually part of our TSW portfolio, since Matthew brought it up here (and see other stories brought up by Brian Hawthorne here in the comments as well as some legal history by Kevin Turnblom here. I’d be interested in what your local papers have to say about it, or whether they use the AP story.

The AP story here started off with ..

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday ended federal protection for many of the nation’s millions of miles of streams, arroyos and wetlands, a sweeping environmental rollback that could leave the waterways more vulnerable to pollution from development, industry and farms.”

As Kevin Turnblom pointed out, If a judge throws a rule out because it’s illegal, and a reg is never enforced (so nothing has ever been protected by it) then.. is the next one really a “rollback”? It’s clearly not a rollback in Physical World (where water exists).

I did run across a story in the Colorado Springs Gazette by Tom Roeder that tried to show both sides and also gave some local context.. here’s a link and below are some excerpts.

Under the old rule, enacted by the Obama administration in 2015, federal authorities took a broad, and some say nebulous, view of their powers to stop water pollution.

The 2015 rule enforced federal regulation on “intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds.”

The Obama-era rule covered an estimated 60 percent of U.S. waters.

That meant actions that could impact those waters required a federal permit. The rules prompted a string of court battles, and even the Supreme Court called defining which waters were federal “a contentious and difficult task.”

The lawsuits meant the Obama-era rules never took full effect, and left the EPA scrambling for a definition of federal waters that would pass judicial muster.

President Donald Trump made rolling back the water regulation a plank in his 2016 campaign as he wooed farmers and ranchers.

But the rollback took years as the EPA wrangled over rules and faced a firestorm from environmental groups.

You gotta love Colorado politics, though. Our governor, who seemingly would think that our state is capable of regulating water quality, especially since there is a D majority in the House and Senate said:

Colorado’s Democratic Gov. Jared Polis issued a scathing statement about the rule change.

“Our administration will continue to reject attempts by the Trump administration to gut proven ways to protect our health and environment,” he said.

How could it be a “proven” way if the reg had never been in force?

Meanwhile, both the Colorado Springs mayor and local Congressperson argue for not federalizing what needn’t be federalized.

Suthers said those waters that won’t be regulated by the feds will still have plenty of oversight, but from state and local authorities rather than the EPA.

“Anything that happens there will be in the jurisdiction of the state of Colorado,” said Suthers, who served as the state’s attorney general before winning the city’s top job.

Lamborn said having locals regulate more water issues is the best solution.

“If you believe in federalism, then units of government that are closer to the people should regulate those decisions,” he said.

Here’s another interesting statement from this piece:

I haven’t checked this for accuracy but the author says..(about the 2015 non-implemented rule).

EPA estimated that the final Clean Water Rule expanded the types of water subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction by about 3 percent, or 1,500 acres nationwide. Opponents clearly think it could be much broader – and until they see the rule implemented on the landscape, their fears may have some basis in fact.

Meanwhile Matthew’s post headline said “millions of acres.” It might be interesting for someone to go back and check the 2015 regulation. The difference might well be in assumptions about how it might have been interpreted, which we never found out because it wasn’t ever implemented.

Here’s the American Farm Bureau’s side of the story:

The 2015 rule grants the federal government regulatory control over virtually any waters – and many land areas that only temporarily hold water – assuming a scope of authority Congress never authorized. It effectively eliminates any constraints the term “navigable” previously imposed on the agencies’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction, and few, if any, waters would fall outside of federal control.

The 2015 rule provides none of the clarity and certainty it promised. Instead, it creates confusion and risk by giving the agencies almost unlimited authority to regulate, at their discretion, any low spot where rainwater collects, including common farm ditches, ephemeral drainages, agricultural ponds and isolated wetlands found in and near farms and ranches across the nation, no matter how small or seemingly unconnected they may be to true “navigable waters.”

The 2015 rule defines terms such as “tributary” and “adjacent” in ways that make it impossible for farmers and ranchers to know whether the specific ditches, ephemeral drains or low areas on their land will be deemed “waters of the U.S.” But these definitions are broad enough to give regulators (and citizen plaintiffs) justification to assert that such areas are subject to Clean Water Act regulation and give the agencies sweeping new authority to regulate land use, which they may exercise at will, or at the whim of a citizen plaintiff.

Now what happens when a new species on a national forest is listed under ESA?

by

Once upon a time, when a new species was listed under ESA, the Forest Service was required to reinitiate consultation on its forest plan regarding the effects of the plan on the species.  Projects were often held up while this was occurring.  As a result of the Cottonwood litigation, involving a new designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx, the law was recently changed so that neither new critical habitat nor listings require new consultation on existing forest plans (as discussed here).

The candy darter (CBD photo) was listed as endangered in late 2018 and it is found on the Monongahela National Forest.  The Center for Biological Diversity provided this news release regarding a proposed timber sale in a watershed where the species is found and where critical habitat for it is being considered:

The U.S. Forest Service this week announced it will withdraw a 2,400-acre logging project in West Virginia’s Monongahela National Forest following objections raised by conservation groups about harm to an endangered fish.

The project would likely have caused significant erosion and sent sediment into rivers and streams, threatening the rare fish and other animals.

“Friends of Blackwater and all of our supporters are very pleased that the Monongahela National Forest supervisor has withdrawn the Big Rock Timber Project proposal,” said Judy Rodd, director of Friends of Blackwater. “Hopefully this is a step toward fully protecting the candy darter, a tiny jewel of a fish found in the timbering proposal area, near the world-famous Cranberry Glades.”

The Forest Service announcement said the project would have been the first of its kind to require formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act for the brightly colored candy darter, which was listed as endangered in November 2018. The Fish and Wildlife Service would have had to calculate how many, if any, candy darters could be killed or harmed by the proposed project. The Fish and Wildlife Service also plans to include portions of the logging project area in its final designation of the fish’s critical habitat. Those issues contributed to the decision to pull the project.

Presumably the Monongahela has come to a full stop on projects that may affect the darter, while they figure out a strategy for consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service.  This is pretty close to the same result that would have occurred without the “Cottonwood fix.”  This is a situation where consultation on a forest plan has proven beneficial.  It should result in a species conservation strategy that “fully protects” the species’ habitat on the forest that the FWS supports and that can be included in the forest plan.  The FWS may then rely on the forest plan decisions and their biological opinion for analysis of its overall effects, which would simplify and streamline the consultation process for projects.

Post-Cottonwood, they could now choose instead to proceed on an individual project-by-project basis, but why?

(PS – This looks like an example where the administrative objection process prevented the Forest Service from losing a lawsuit.)

Forest Management: “For a Warming World, A New Strategy for Protecting Watersheds”

by

This article was prepared by Yale Environment 360. Although its focus is primarily on protecting watersheds, most of the well validated scientific principles that Sound Forest Management is based on are clearly demonstrated in a way that easily shows the value of human intervention in our federal forests for other site/situational specific prescribed purposes as well. Here are some highlights which have been the subject of many previous posts on this site.

  1. water managers are learning that careful management and restoration of watershed ecosystems, including thinning trees and conducting prescribed burns, are important tools in coping with a hotter, drier climate.
  2. New Mexico’s forests … areas that supported 40 trees per acre in the pre-European era now were blanketed with up to a hundred times as many. This profusion of trees — as many as one per square yard — weakened all of them, and rendered them defenseless against megafires.
  3. the Las Conchas Fire … consumed nearly an acre of forest per second … and left behind nearly 100 square miles so severely burned that even seeds to regenerate the forest were destroyed …
    two months later, when a thunderstorm in the Jemez Mountains washed tons of ash and debris into the Rio Grande River, the water source for half of New Mexico’s population and for a major agricultural area. Only an inch of rain fell, but the debris flows the storm generated turned the river black and dumped ash, sediment, and tree and shrub remnants into a major reservoir⁠, requiring a costly cleanup … a heavy rainstorm two years later generated enough sediment to entirely plug the Rio Grande
  4. In the last two decades, megafires in similarly dry and overgrown watersheds have ended up contaminating downstream water supplies in numerous areas throughout the western United States, including Phoenix; Denver; Flagstaff, Arizona; and Fort Collins, Colorado. Downstream water managers serving millions of urban residents have learned that the security of their water supplies is tied to the health of upland watersheds that may be hundreds of miles away.
  5. In the Western U.S., watershed restoration chiefly consists of two steps: thinning of trees and shrubs, and prescribed burns. In the Eastern U.S., it involves a bigger set of tools, including planting native trees, reducing the area of impervious surfaces, and slowing the speed of stormwater so that more water percolates into soil and aquifers. All these measures are designed to improve water quality.
  6. numerous pilot projects have shown the efficacy of restoration, agencies rarely have enough money to treat entire watersheds
  7. after the Las Conchas fire, residents in the Rio Grande watershed … in 2014 they launched a public-private partnership, the Rio Grande Water Fund, whose 73 contributing members⁠ include government agencies at all levels, foundations and other NGOs, local water utilities, and local businesses and residents. Together they raised enough money for a 20-year program to restore 600,000 forest acres — enough to support the resilience of the entire central and northern New Mexico portion of the Rio Grande watershed. They have already restored 108,000 acres, and are racing to complete the job before another megafire occurs.
  8. The Rio Grande Water Fund’s public-private partnership model has become official federal policy. Last August, the U.S. Forest Service published a landmark report called “Toward Shared Stewardship Across Landscapes” that outlined the agency’s intention to convene watershed stakeholders of all kinds to plan and fund watershed restoration. “Because fire crosses back and forth across land ownership boundaries, the risk is shared,” the report said. “Accordingly, land managers cannot achieve the fire-related outcomes people want… without shared stewardship of the wildland fire environment.”
  • The benefits of watershed restoration extend far beyond water security. Most obviously, healthy forests deter megafires. Laura McCarthy, the Rio Grande Water Fund’s executive director, says that in three instances since restoration work began in New Mexico, wildfires that ran up against restored zones immediately died down. Healthy forests can tolerate low-intensity fires: they possess diverse understories of grasses, sedges, and forbs and rich, microbe-laden soil, all of which supports wildlife, from insects to mammals. Watershed restoration can double the amount of carbon stored in the soil, which means that it’s a vital tool in fighting climate change. And watershed restoration creates jobs: In the case of the Rio Grande Water Fund, many of those jobs go to youths in traditional Hispanic and Native American communities where unemployment rates are 30 percent or higher.
  • In some regions, forest restoration even increases water supplies. Roger Bales, a hydrologist at the University of California, Merced, has shown that because watershed restoration requires the removal of vast numbers of young trees, loss of water into the atmosphere through evapotranspiration in those trees is eliminated. The water instead flows downward, into the soil, often on its way to the watershed’s rivers and reservoirs. Bales’ experiments in California’s Sierra Nevada show that restoration can increase water supplies in downstream reservoirs by 9 to 16 percent. That makes restoration a more cost effective (and vastly less destructive) water supply method in California than building dams. Restoration is also cheaper than fighting the megafires that are otherwise inevitable in the overgrown forests: last year’s Camp Fire in northern California alone caused $11 billion to $13 billion in damage.
  • unless it is followed by prescribed burns, undesirable trees and shrubs grow back. In that case, said Don Falk, a leading fire researcher at the University of Arizona, “You’re either committed to a perpetual Sisyphean cycle of thinning” every 10 or 15 years “or you’ve got to let fire back into the system.” Fire is an integral part of the functioning of many ecosystems: Blazes of less-than-megafire scale germinate seeds, keep native species in balance while warding off invasive species, and stimulate microbial activity that produces soil nutrients.

Let’s Identify and Discuss Some Specific Projects- Fuel Treatments “Miles Away” From Infrastructure

by

A number of years ago, before I graduated from the Forest Service, our Regional Forester invited some academics from the University of Colorado at Boulder to talk to us. There was a fairly large groups of Regional Office specialists at the meeting (including our Regional Fuels Specialist, wildlife, fish, ecologists and so on.).  I do remember the professors kept telling us that logging in the backcountry was not necessary for fuel treatments to protect communities.  We found ourselves in agreement (of course there are many definitions of WUI and backcountry) and said “but we’re not doing that.” But it was like information only went one way.. from them to us.  My hypothesis is that teachers are sometimes not used to being challenged by people who know the same, or more, about a topic.  Of course, I wanted to ask them to cite evidence for their claims, but in the context of the meeting that was considered to be – I guess- inhospitable or inappropriate.   The underlying fear, I believe, by FS folks was, that if challenged, even in the most gentle way (I thought I was gentle, anyway), they might become even more outspoken about us in a negative way. I don’t know if that was true and suspect that they might have enjoyed an intellectual free-for-all.

Nevertheless, here we are, years later, and Matthew has brought up a related concept.. “protecting homes and communities from wildfire does not include logging miles away from the homes and communities.” This sounds a lot like what those professors from CU told us years ago. But since then I realized that the professors framed fuel treatments as only being about homes and communities. I know, Denver Water headquarters is not that far from Boulder, but I don’t know that the circles ever crossed.

Denver Water, for example, does not want wildfires costing them large amounts of money in sediment removal.

At the EADM workshop for Region 2, power line folks were represented. They were looking for coordinated NEPA approaches to do vegetation management around their power lines.  Are there power lines in the “backcountry” or does the existence of power lines make it “not backcountry”?

So fuel treatments may be desirable to protect infrastructure besides home and communities. And where is that infrastructure located? Are we just talking past each other when some say “homes and communities” and others say “protecting water supplies” or “power lines”? Do different parts of the country have different infrastructure concerns that drive the way this discussion gets framed? Should someone (??) organize field trips so that people can see the same projects and discuss them?

I think to really understand each others’ points of view, we would need to find some examples of “logging miles away from communities” or “logging in the backcountry” and see 1) if fuel treatment was in the purpose and need and 2) specifically what infrastructure the treatments were intended to protect (what we might call “protection targets”.

Based on Dr. Mark Finney’s work, it can be “science-based management” to do treatments that are further away from specific protection targets based on the model. So it would be interesting if that science (on Strategically Placed Landscape Treatments)  is currently being used, and how far those treatments are from protection targets. Here are the links to two posts  one on Finney’s work and its application in the Sierra Nevada in California.

Here’s a link to the Forests to Faucets YouTube video in the image above.

 

Trapping lawsuits

by

Neither of these is going to show up in the NFS litigation summaries because the Forest Service is not a party to the litigation (yet), but the trapping at issue occurs on national forest lands, and the Forest Service does have the authority to regulate trapping that occurs on national forest lands.

Two environmental groups have sued the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for failing to ban the trapping of Humboldt martens in Oregon’s coastal forests.  Humboldt martens were proposed for listing as a threatened species in October.  Threats include “loss of habitat, wildfire, changing climate, trapping, vehicle mortality, vegetation management, exposure to toxicants, threats from predators and effects associated with small and isolated populations.”  According to the Center for Biological Diversity news release, “Following the largest mammal survey ever conducted in the state, researchers from Oregon State University and the U.S. Forest Service recommended eliminating trapping of coastal martens as a first step in rebuilding the state’s imperiled populations.”  Good for the Forest Service.  Their involvement may have something to do with the fact that their “vegetation management” could be curtailed if the species is listed.  Perhaps they will intervene in the lawsuit on the side of CBD et al?  Probably as likely as them invoking their own authority to regulate trapping as a use of national forest lands.  But that may be better than being added as a defendant.

The Environmental Protection Information Center has filed a notice of intent to sue the federal USDA Wildlife Services.  According to this article, they allege that the agency’s program for killing beavers harms endangered fish because beavers “benefit salmon and steelhead by building better habitat conditions, including creation of ponds used by salmon and increasing stream flow in summer months.”  They are asserting that the Wildlife Services must consult on the effects of this program with the National Marine Fisheries Service.  While the Forest Service is not mentioned, nor is the geographic scope, this certainly includes practices on national forest lands.  The Forest Service has a Memorandum of Understanding with Wildlife Services, addressing among other things “managing damage caused by indigenous, non-native and feral vertebrates on NFS lands,” in which the Forest Service is designated as the lead agency for NEPA compliance.  While the MOU acknowledges the need to comply with the Endangered Species Act, this responsibility is not designated.  It appears that the Forest Service at least shares any obligation to consult with Wildlife Services and could be named as a party.

 

Validated Science versus Unproven Scientific Hypothesis – Which One Should We Choose?

by

In a 6/13/18 article, David Atkins provides a critique of the assumptions behind the Law et al article titled: “Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests” and shows how hypothetical science can and has been used, without any caveat, to provide some groups with slogans that meet their messaging needs instead of waiting for validation of the hypothesis and thereby considering the holistic needs of the world.

I) BACKGROUND

The noble goal of Law et. al. is to determine the “effectiveness of forest strategies to mitigate climate change”. They state that their methodology “should integrate observations and mechanistic ecosystem process models with future climate, CO2, disturbances from fire, and management.”

A) The generally (ignoring any debate over the size of the percentage increase) UNCONTESTED points regarding locking up more carbon in the Law et. al. article are as follows:
1) Reforestation on appropriate sites – ‘Potential 5% improvement in carbon storage by 2100’
2) Afforestation on appropriate sites – ‘Potential 1.4% improvement in carbon storage by 2100′

B) The CONTESTED points regarding locking up 17% more carbon by 2100 in the Law et. al. article are as follows:
1) Lengthened harvest cycles on private lands
2) Restricting harvest on public lands

C) Atkins, at the 2018 International Mass Timber Conference protested by Oregon Wild, notes that: “Oregon Wild (OW) is advocating that storing more carbon in forests is better than using wood in buildings as a strategy to mitigate climate change.” OW’s first reference from Law et. al. states: “Increasing forest carbon on public lands reduced emissions compared with storage in wood products” (see Law et. al. abstract). Another reference quoted by OW from Law et. al. goes so far as to claim that: “Recent analysis suggests substitution benefits of using wood versus more fossil fuel-intensive materials have been overestimated by at least an order of magnitude.”

II) Law et. al. CAVEATS ignored by OW

A) They clearly acknowledge that their conclusions are based on computer simulations (modeling various scenarios using a specific set of assumptions subject to debate by other scientists).

B) In some instances, they use words like “probably”, “likely” and “appears” when describing some assumptions and outcomes rather than blindly declaring certainty.

III) Atkins’ CRITIQUE

Knowing that the modeling used in the Law et. al. study involves significant assumptions about each of the extremely complex components and their interactions, Atkins proceeds to investigate the assumptions which were used to integrate said models with the limited variables mentioned and shows how they overestimate the carbon cost of using wood, underestimate the carbon cost of storing carbon on the stump and underestimate the carbon cost of substituting non-renewable resources for wood. This allows Oregon Wild to tout unproven statements as quoted in item “I-C” above and treat them as fact and justification for policy changes instead of as an interesting but unproven hypothesis that needs to be validated in order to complete the scientific process.

Quotes from Atkins Critique:

A) Wood Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Versus Non-renewable substitutes.
1) “The calculation used to justify doubling forest rotations assumes no leakage. Leakage is a carbon accounting term referring to the potential that if you delay cutting trees in one area, others might be cut somewhere else to replace the gap in wood production, reducing the supposed carbon benefit.”
2) “It assumes a 50-year half-life for buildings instead of the minimum 75 years the ASTM standard calls for, which reduces the researchers’ estimate of the carbon stored in buildings.”
3) “It assumes a decline of substitution benefits, which other LCA scientists consider as permanent.”
4) “analysis chooses to account for a form of fossil fuel leakage, but chooses not to model any wood harvest leakage.”
5) “A report published by the Athena Institute in 2004, looked at actual building demolition over a three-plus-year period in St. Paul, Minn. It indicated 51 percent of the buildings were older than 75 years. Only 2 percent were demolished in the first 25 years and only 12 percent in the first 50 years.”
6) “The Law paper assumes that the life of buildings will get shorter in the future rather than longer. In reality, architects and engineers are advocating the principle of designing and building for longer time spans – with eventual deconstruction and reuse of materials rather than disposal. Mass timber buildings substantially enhance this capacity. There are Chinese Pagoda temples made from wood that are 800 to 1,300 years old. Norwegian churches are over 800 years old. I visited at cathedral in Scotland with a roof truss system from the 1400s. Buildings made of wood can last for many centuries. If we follow the principle of designing and building for the long run, the carbon can be stored for hundreds of years.”
7) “The OSU scientists assumed wood energy production is for electricity production only. However, the most common energy systems in the wood products manufacturing sector are combined heat and power (CHP) or straight heat energy production (drying lumber or heat for processing energy) where the efficiency is often two to three times as great and thus provides much larger fossil fuel offsets than the modeling allows.”
8) “The peer reviewers did not include an LCA expert.”
9) The Dean of the OSU College of Forestry was asked how he reconciles the differences between two Doctorate faculty members when the LCA Specialist (who is also the director of CORRIM which is a non-profit that conducts and manages research on the environmental impacts of production, use, and disposal of forest products). The Dean’s answer was “It isn’t the role of the dean to resolve these differences, … Researchers often explore extremes of a subject on purpose, to help define the edges of our understanding … It is important to look at the whole array of research results around a subject rather than using those of a single study or publication as a conclusion to a field of study.”
10) Alan Organschi, a practicing architect, a professor at Yale stated his thought process as “There is a huge net carbon benefit [from using wood] and enormous variability in the specific calculations of substitution benefits … a ton of wood (which is half carbon) goes a lot farther than a ton of concrete, which releases significant amounts of carbon during a building’s construction”. He then paraphrased a NASA climate scientistfrom the late 1980’s who said ‘Quit using high fossil fuel materials and start using materials that sink carbon, that should be the principle for our decisions.’
11) The European Union, in 2017, based on “current literature”, called “for changes to almost double the mitigation effects by EU forests through Climate Smart Forestry (CSF). … It is derived from a more holistic and effective approach than one based solely on the goals of storing carbon in forest ecosystems”
12) Various CORRIM members stated:
a) “Law et al. does not meet the minimum elements of a Life Cycle Assessment: system boundary, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. All four are required by the international standards (ISO 14040 and 14044); therefore, Law et al. does not qualify as an LCA.”
b) “What little is shared in the article regarding inputs to the simulation model ignores the latest developments in wood life cycle assessment and sustainable building design, rendering the results at best inaccurate and most likely incorrect.”
c) “The PNAS paper, which asserts that growing our PNW forests indefinitely would reduce the global carbon footprint, ignores that at best there would 100 percent leakage to other areas with lower productivity … which will result in 2 to 3.5 times more acres harvested for the same amount of building materials. Alternatively, all those buildings will be built from materials with a higher carbon footprint, so the substitution impact of using fossil-intensive products in place of renewable low carbon would result in >100 percent leakage.”
d) More on leakage: “In 2001, seven years after implementation, Jack Ward Thomas, one of the architects of the plan and former chief of the U.S. Forest Service, said: “The drop in the cut in the Pacific Northwest was essentially replaced by imports from Canada, Scandinavia and Chile … but we haven’t reduced our per-capita consumption of wood. We have only shifted the source.”
e) “Bruce Lippke, professor emeritus at the University of Washington and former executive director of CORRIM said, “The substitution benefits of wood in place of steel or concrete are immediate, permanent and cumulative.””

B) Risks Resulting from High Densities of Standing Timber
1) “The paper underestimates the amount of wildfire in the past and chose not to model increases in the amount of fire in the future driven by climate change.”
2) “The authors chose to treat the largest fire in their 25-year calibration period, the Biscuit Fire (2003), as an anomaly. Yet 2017 provided a similar number of acres burned. … the model also significantly underestimated five of the six other larger fire years ”
3) “The paper also assumed no increase in fires in the future”
4) Atkins comments/quotes support what some of us here on the NCFP blog have been saying for years regarding storing more timber on the stump. There is certainty that a highly significant increase in carbon loss to fire, insects and disease will result from increased stand densities as a result of storing more carbon on the stump on federal lands. Well documented, validated and fundamental plant physiology and fire science can only lead us to that conclusion. Increases in drought caused by global warming will only increase the stress on already stressed, overly dense forests and thereby further decrease their viability/health by decreasing the availability of already limited resources such as access to minerals, moisture and sunlight while providing closer proximity between trees to ease the ability and rate of spread of fire, insects and disease between adjacent trees.

Footnote:
In their conclusion, Law et. al. state that“GHG reduction must happen quickly to avoid surpassing a 2°C increase in temperature since preindustrial times.” This emphasis leads them to focus on strategies which, IMHO, will only exacerbate the long-term problem.
→ For perspective, consider the “Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm”

Forest Policy Looms Over Oregon’s Climate Change Debate.. Or Does It? Oregonian Story

by

Steve posted this story on forest carbon in Oregon in the comments here, but I thought it was worthy of its own post.

The article says..

As lawmakers gear up to make another attempt to pass a climate change bill in 2019, new data suggests that the forest sector is not only a factor in Oregon’s carbon picture, it is THE factor and one of national and even international importance as lawmakers look to reduce the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere

I’ll come back to the italics later at the end of this post.

What is the “new data”? I wrote Ted Sickinger, the author of this article, and he said via email “I linked to the global warming commission’s draft report, which I’ve attached. But the paper linked below also addresses it. It’s also the one giving the industry conniptions.” Now I don’t know what industry he’s talking about for sure. But based on the abstract, if I were a grass grower who was asked to stop making money from grass crops, grow trees and not cut them, so that other people can claim a carbon reduction for the state, I would be a bit cranky. Unless the state were to compensate me (and the downstream folks who provide agricultural products and services) for the loss of income..

Here is the abstract of the paper his is talking about linked here:

Strategies to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions through forestry activities have been proposed, but ecosystem process-based integration of climate change, enhanced CO2, disturbance from fire, and management actions at regional scales are extremely limited. Here, we examine the relative merits of afforestation, reforestation, management changes, and harvest residue bioenergy use in the Pacific Northwest. This region represents some of the highest carbon density forests in the world, which can store carbon in trees for 800 y or more. Oregon’s net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) was equivalent to 72% of total emissions in 2011–2015. By 2100, simulations show increased net carbon uptake with little change in wildfires. Reforestation, afforestation, lengthened harvest cycles on private lands, and restricting harvest on public lands increase NECB 56% by 2100, with the latter two actions contributing the most. Resultant cobenefits included water availability and biodiversity, primarily from increased forest area, age, and species diversity. Converting 127,000 ha of irrigated grass crops to native forests could decrease irrigation demand by 233 billion m3⋅y−1. Utilizing harvest residues for bioenergy production instead of leaving them in forests to decompose increased emissions in the short-term (50 y), reducing mitigation effectiveness. Increasing forest carbon on public lands reduced emissions compared with storage in wood products because the residence time is more than twice that of wood products. Hence, temperate forests with high carbon densities and lower vulnerability to mortality have substantial potential for reducing forest sector emissions. Our analysis framework provides a template for assessments in other temperate regions.

This study was funded by DOE and USDA-NIFA.

But this analysis reminds me of the California studies of thinning.. perhaps Oregonians could save water by doing more thinning rather than converting grass crops to trees? Was that analysis included in the study?
Here’s a link from an NSF funded study:

Forest thinning has increased in recent decades in an effort to stave off disastrous wildfires fueled by dense forests. This study shows that restoring forests through mechanical thinning or wildfire can also save California billions of gallons of water each year.

“The need for forest restoration is being driven largely by the need to lower the risk of high-intensity wildfires and restore forest health,” said University of California Merced scientist Roger Bales, director of the Southern Sierra CZO and study co-author. “Downstream users who benefit from the increased water yield are an important potential revenue stream that can help offset some of the costs of restoration.”

Forested areas needing restoration are large, Bales said, but potential changes in water availability are significant. The total effect of wildfires over a 20-year period suggests that forest thinning could increase water flow from Sierra Nevada watersheds by as much as 10 percent.

But back to the discussion draft, DISCUSSION DRAFT_OGWC Forest Carbon Project Report_v10_CLEAN_061818. I noticed that most of the references were from Harmon and Law. Which is fine, they work at OSU and OSU is the Oregon State University. But it makes me wonder whether other scientists have equally relevant ideas or points of view or research that might be relevant. If I were the State Legislature, I would have asked for a report that included a variety of different thinkers and stakeholders and scientists from all parts of Oregon, and asked “what are the environmental and social pros and cons of different approaches to forest carbon in Oregon?” That indeed might be an effort/paper worth funding.

PS After all that reading, nowhere did I find anything comparing the emissions of the timber industry to other industries, as alluded to by the first paragraph in the post “it is THE factor”. Or am I missing something?

Forest Service prosecutes mudders

by

The federal government does go to court sometimes to protect our natural resources, here in North Dakota:

Three men accused of damaging U.S. Forest Service land four years ago while going mudding in the Little Missouri National Grasslands now face criminal charges in federal court.

Five full-sized pickups got stuck in the mud in the area known as Estes Springs. The individuals involved then got two road graders to try to recover the pickups, but then got the road graders stuck in the wet and muddy conditions.

The area has signs indicating it is National Forest Service land and directing the public to stay on established roads and trails.

Jan Swenson, executive director of the Badlands Conservation Alliance, saw photos of the incident four years ago and said it looked like the pickups had driven donuts in the mud following a rainstorm.

“It is great to see the Forest Service following through,” Swenson said. “It would be encouraging to see other government entities follow through on enforcement issues as well.”

Wild and scenic river plan lawsuit

by

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires a comprehensive river management plan for eight rivers and creeks in southern California that Congress designated under the Act in 2009.  The law requires completion of river plans within three years of designation.  The rivers flow through national forest and BLM lands.  A complaint was filed March 27.

The North Fork of the San Jacinto River, for example, runs through lands managed by the San Bernardino National Forest and provides habitat for the critically endangered mountain yellow-legged frog, as well as other animals including California spotted owls and rubber boas.

Animals that live along Palm Canyon Creek include the southwestern willow flycatcher and Peninsular bighorn sheep.  “We’re concerned that by not having a comprehensive management plan for this wild creek that the resources could degrade over time,” she said.

The complaint asks  for “a permanent injunction, to prepare a Management Plan … by a date certain.”  Seems like a good candidate for a settlement, no?

Cherokee National Forest objects to objection

by

Plaintiff environmental groups expressed concerns from the beginning of the Dinkey Project about the effects on water quality because of erosion caused by previous nearby timber projects in similar terrain.  After the Forest released the draft EA on the Project it also released a monitoring and evaluation report that revealed the erosion problems caused by the earlier projects and included recommended mitigation measures.  The EA and Decision Notice for the Dinkey Project failed to acknowledge this information and relied on mitigation measures that had failed in the earlier projects.  The complaint alleges violations of NEPA and also NFMA because the Project would be inconsistent with the forest plan requirements for soil protection and would cause irreversible resource damage.

The plaintiffs also filed an administrative objection to the Dinkey Project raising these concerns.  The Forest Service dismissed the objection, citing failure to comply with the requirements for objections as follows:

“Based on the information provided in your objection, the issues raised do not demonstrate connection to prior comments with specific violations of law, regulation, or policy. In addition, no specific proposed remedies are stated for consideration by the Reviewing Officer for resolving the objection. Therefore, the objection does not comply with 36 CFR 218.8(d)(5) and (6).”

Here are those requirements:

(5) A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and

(6) A statement that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity(ies) for comment (see paragraph (c) of this section).

The complaint describes how plaintiffs have met these requirements.  In my experience, it is unusual for the Forest Service to nitpick an objection like this, especially in a case where the parties have consistently described what their concerns are and what they would like the agency to do.  It’s certainly not consistent with the idea that pre-decisional objections are more collaborative than post-decisional appeals.  Is this a unique situation or is it a manifestation of Trump Administration policies to get rid of barriers to “getting the cut out” (again, “GTCOA”)?