New study sounds alarm, provides hope for Western red cedars

Interesting article on the latest research. I would note that western redcedar may have done well and expanded its range during and after the Little Ice Age, and the species now grows (and is dying) in areas it in no longer adapted to. A researcher “found young Western red cedars growing alongside drought-hardy Oregon white oaks.” What’s more, the cessation of Indian burning in the Willamette Valley let cedars “invade” areas where previously they would have succumbed to fire. The same in true for Doug-fir — it’s not doing well in sites it wasn’t well adapted to.

New study sounds alarm, provides hope for Western red cedars

Research links cedar death to climate, details which trees are dying, which are surviving and shows how the species might be saved

Robinson Creek Fire

The Robinson Creek Fire, on June 29, 1964, burned 350 acres on Sawmill Ridge.

 

I was returning to the Bridgeport Ranger Station from an early morning patrol of the Green Creek and Virginia Lakes areas when I detected what became the largest wildfire the Bridgeport Ranger District would experience during my five Toiyabe National Forest fire seasons.

It was June 29, 1964, and having just passed through Bridgeport I was northbound on U.S. Highway 395 when, across Bridgeport Valley to the southwest, I first saw it. Sheep trailing on Timber Harvest Road? Or smoke? Smoke! Wispy white smoke!

Three miles to the ranger station, and maybe eight or ten to the smoke. I tried to raise the station on the radio as I pushed the gas pedal to the floor. The truck responded, but the station didn’t. A glance at my watch told me why. It was lunch time, and with the fire danger rated moderate the office wasn’t staffed. This was years before fire control officer Marion Hysell had a Forest Service radio crackling in his ranger station house day and night.

Two miles to the ranger station. I could have switched to channel two, raised the Toiyabe National Forest dispatcher in Reno, explained the situation, and asked him to telephone the FCO’s house. But I decided I could get there, tell him myself, pick up some help, and be on my way to the still wispy-but-thickening column of smoke before I’d half finish telling the dispatcher my story.

Two minutes later, I came to a dusty halt in front of the FCO’s house and passed the word. Then, with Don, the only crewman not out on project work, I headed up the Buckeye Road toward the fire. After alerting Ranger Hoag, who decided to man the office until the district clerk returned from lunch, the FCO loaded his Jeep with fire tools. As he wheeled toward the fire via Bridgeport and the Twin Lakes road, he confirmed my sighting to Ranger Hoag over the radio. Ranger Hoag alerted the supervisor’s office and the dispatcher, and ordered air tankers.

Fifteen minutes after leaving the station—probably twenty or so after I first saw the smoke—Don and I were speeding down Timber Harvest Road toward a blaze that, at about a mile’s distance, I estimated at ten to fifteen acres and spreading fast through cheatgrass and sagebrush toward the Jeffrey pine-clad slopes of Sawmill Ridge. Through the smoke, on the far side of the fire, a few people could be seen making vain attempts to stop it.

In what was a futile—and probably foolhardy—attempt to head off the fire before it could reach the timber, I left the road and, within a minute or two, Don and I were attacking flames running upslope along a two-hundred-yard to three-hundred-yard front. But two guys with a couple hundred gallons of water and hand tools, it rapidly became obvious, were no match for a fast-moving fire of that size.

About the time I recognized that truth, and also realized that my poor headwork was getting Don and me into more than a little trouble, I saw the FCO’s Jeep jounce over the sagebrush and halt some distance off. “Fall back! Let’s get this rig outta here!” he ordered as he ran our way. So, as I reeled in the hose, Marion maneuvered the patrol truck toward safety. Within a few minutes, the two vehicles and the three of us were back on Timber Harvest Road, and the scene of our “initial attack” was engulfed in flames.

Ranger Hoag’s pickup crossed the bridge over Robinson Creek and he joined us on the road as the fire, now all of an hour old, raced into the timber. Taking charge, he requested a spot weather forecast from Reno and, with the FCO, planned for the reinforcements starting our way.

Since little, if anything, could be done about the head of the fire—then moving rapidly upslope, torching and spotting in the timber—two rag-tag crews of mostly pick-up firefighters were deployed along its flanks to prevent it from spotting and spreading into the nearby resort and campground. From my smoke-choked vantage point with the Timber Harvest Road crew, the fire seemed to be living up to the expectations of the spot weather forecast. Superheated pines exploded. Deer, fleeing the flames, ignored me as they bounded across the road.

Just after two o’clock, an old ex-Navy TBM from Carson City made the first air drop of 600 gallons of bentonite slurry on the head of the fire. If this slowed its advance at all, it didn’t for long. It did boost our morale.

So did arrival of the first substantial reinforcements. Before the fire was two years old, fifty U.S. Marines from the Mountain Warfare Training Center at Pickle Meadows on the Sonora Pass road and sixty State of California inmates of the Inyo-Mono Conservation Crew near Bishop led by California Division of Forestry overhead were on the firelines. By three o’clock, over a hundred Marines were on the fire, and additional pick-up firefighters had been hired. And by four o’clock, when the air tanker’s scout plane had reported the size of the fire to Fire Boss Hoag at about 250 acres, fire control personnel from the West Walker, Alpine, and Carson ranger districts had begun to arrive. A project fire overhead team left Reno about five o’clock, and overhead also began traveling to Bridgeport from the Central Nevada and Las Vegas districts of the forest.

By late afternoon, the situation looked like the project fire it had become. The fire was divided into four sectors, with Marion Hysell as sector boss over Forest Service crew bosses, Marine Corps line workers, and three bulldozers on the “hot” up-hill end of the fire. A PBY and two TBMs made a second series of drops on the head of the fire. Much to my disappointment, I was assigned to set up the fire camp to receive firefighters and equipment as they arrived. By nightfall, the camp and the night shift had been organized. I was eventually relieved as camp boss and told to rest up for a day shift job.

I’ve spent more comfortable nights than that one in a paper sleeping bag out in the sagebrush. While I slept, the major battle of the campaign was fought at the top of Sawmill Ridge.

The plan was to take advantage of the cooling effects of the night air, which would slow the fire down, and stop it with a wide fireline at the top of the ridge. With seven cats and 76 men on this hot sector, Marion was building that line across the ridge from north to south. At eleven o’clock, he tied in with the southern sector’s line to contain the fire. But, two hours later, the wind shifted from the west to blow from the southeast and, as firefighters retreated for air and safety, the fire jumped the line. Another line was started to corral the blowup.

I awoke at first light to a transformed fire camp and landscape. The camp’s population had doubled, at least, and there seemed to be plenty of fresh firefighters for the day shift. A mobile fire weather forecasting unit, complete with spinning anemometer and other instruments, had arrived and was in business. Best of all, a field kitchen was serving breakfast. Dirty, cold, and sore, I ate.

I was assigned to the northern sector as a crew boss, and given a Marine Corps platoon as a crew. The platoon’s sergeant, probably figuring this young Forest Service fellow akin to a second lieutenant, suggested I work the crew-platoon through him. I readily agreed. I held a brief fire school to explain what we were going to do, how to use the tools, and safety before starting up the line. About the only problem I had, as we built fireline toward the ridgetop, was keeping them from bunching up—from working too close to each other for safety.

Fire Boss Hoag declared the fire controlled at noon, just 24 hours after it started. But there was still plenty of mop-up work left.

Late in the afternoon, my Marines and I were relieved by a Forest Service crew from Idaho, and at the end of the day shift I was released to resume fire prevention patrol duties the next morning.

There were plenty of questions to answer during that July first patrol of the Twin Lakes area. Thousands of campers and residents had watched the fire consume 350 acres of brush and timber between Robinson Creek and the top of Sawmill ridge, and everyone wanted to talk about it. I, of course, capitalized on their interest by pushing my fire prevention message. The fire that had so impressed them, we knew, had been man-caused. A couple little boys, the investigation determined, had built a “campfire” in the brush.

Although the fire camp was removed that evening and firefighters from other districts and forests were returned to their stations, mop-up continued for several days.

The smoke of the Robinson Creek Fire had barely cleared when, on July 9, Forest Supervisor Ivan Sack and Frank Dunning, his fire staff officer, conducted the district’s previously-scheduled fire preparedness and readiness inspection. Although we were still mopping up the big one, they told Ranger Hoag and Marion they were pleased with what they saw—including, much to my relief, my fire prevention program. But it seemed to me I was doing everything a fire prevention guard should do well—except preventing big fires.

On the evening of July 21, as I was completing a Twin Lakes patrol, I sighted and extinguished the last smoke. It was a smoldering stump about a third of the way up the ridge. The Robinson Creek Fire was officially out. But, in a way, it would never be out for me. As I crunched my way down the charred slope, it seemed this greatest defeat of my fire prevention career would burn forever in my memory.

 

Adapted from the 2018 third edition of Toiyabe Patrol,

the writer’s memoir of five U.S. Forest Service summers

 on the Toiyabe National Forest in the 1960s.

Is Something Rare (Almost) Everywhere? Geothermal vs. Toads and the Search for Land for Renewables with Fewest (No?) Impacts

Ormat’s Steamboat Hills geothermal plant outside Reno, Nev., supplies electricity to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. (Ormat Technologies)

 

Update: the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe is a plaintiff  with CBD on this lawsuit against this project.

Another excellent piece by Sammy Roth of the LA Times in his Boiling Point newsletter. The Times has something like 99 cents for six months which IMHO is worth getting if you only read Sammy’s work. He also has links to interesting articles on wind and solar and wildlife that I hadn’t seen. And perhaps you can sign up for his Boiling Point newsletter without being a subscriber.  This is a controversy about something considered to be good for decarbonization (geothermal) but has localized environmental impacts. We usually see this as a “good ENGO’s vs. bad industry” kind of thing, but this seems to be a “good ENGO vs. good industry” kind of thing. I like how Sammy interviews both Patrick Donnelly of CBD and folks from Ormat, the geothermal company, and tries to put the pieces together.

Looking through our lens posited yesterday considering the Biden Admin and Native people, I don’t see any mention of Native concerns in this piece (I’m checking with the reporter).  Also the Biden Admin would have to go with the science of the USFWS because of the unique science-based characteristics of ESA (Jon can correct me on this).  And perhaps their own views of “scientific integrity” as Jon brought up here yesterday.

 

The nation’s largest geothermal power company is preparing to sue the Biden administration over its decision to protect a tiny toad, in the latest high-stakes showdown between renewable energy development and wildlife conservation.

In a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — a copy of which was shared exclusively with The Times — Ormat Technologies Inc. warned Wednesday that it would sue the wildlife service in 60 days if the agency doesn’t revisit its decision to declare the Dixie Valley toad an endangered species. That decision might otherwise derail Ormat’s plan for a Nevada geothermal plant that could potentially supply climate-friendly electricity to California.

Federal scientists say the 2-inch amphibian’s wetland habitat — the only place it’s found on Earth — is threatened by Ormat’s renewable energy project. The Reno-based company disputes that conclusion, arguing it’s grounded in shoddy science.

Paul Thomsen, Ormat’s vice president of business development, told me federal officials wrongly assumed his firm’s geothermal production would drain the nearby Dixie Meadows, when the company’s tests have suggested otherwise. He also said the Biden administration had illegally invoked the Endangered Species Act based on speculative future harm to the toad.

“For us, the precedent there is terrifying,” Thomsen said. “If this action were to stand, many renewable energy projects in the West could be thwarted simply based on a concern, with no evidence that they may impact a species in the future.”

“We’re being convicted of a crime that we haven’t committed,” he added.

To help avert the worst consequences of global warming — which is already fueling deadlier and more destructive heat waves, fires, droughts and floods — the U.S. must build huge amounts of renewable energy infrastructure at a breakneck pace.

But across the American West, endangered-species concerns have emerged as a key barrier to construction of solar farms, wind turbines, power lines and lithium mines that would supply electric-car batteries. Lawsuits and protests from conservation activists, Native American tribes and rural residents are poised to slow or block a growing number of projects.

******************

 

As far as Donnelly is concerned, the geothermal industry has a “dirty little secret,” which is that its facilities frequently dry up hot springs. He pointed me to a 2000 research paper from the U.S. Geological Survey concluding that when geothermal plants are built, impacts to nearby water features such as hot springs, geysers and steam vents “should be viewed as the rule, rather than the exception.” The paper cited several decades-old examples involving Nevada plants since acquired by Ormat.

“There’s this huge body of peer-reviewed literature,” Donnelly said.

When I asked Ormat’s Thomsen about that literature, he told me the geothermal plants cited in the research paper used an older technology that the company has phased out at most of its facilities. As for Dixie Meadows, he told me Ormat’s flow testing found no direct connection between the deep geothermal reservoir and shallower springs that he said feed the wetlands.

He also noted that Ormat recently reduced the plant’s proposed size from 60 megawatts to 12 megawatts, and that the company agreed to extensive real-time monitoring to ensure the wetlands aren’t affected. He said the monitoring would cost roughly $1.5 million a year during the geothermal facility’s operation, adding to a likely construction cost of around $60 million.

Federal officials, Thomsen said, failed to take those factors into account before protecting the Dixie Valley toad last year.

“We support the Endangered Species Act,” Thomsen said. “We want it to be implemented properly.”

***********************

An Interior Department spokesperson declined to comment on Ormat’s 60-day notice warning of a potential lawsuit.

But in its species assessment of the Dixie Valley toad, Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service cited research that it said showed the springs feeding Dixie Meadows “are not hydraulically isolated from the underlying geothermal reservoir.” As a result, the toad’s wetland habitat “can be impacted by production pumping and/or injection for the geothermal project,” the agency wrote.

Donnelly, meanwhile, pointed me to data showing that temperatures and water levels increased in one spot at Dixie Meadows after Ormat finished flow testing — a possible indication of underground hydraulic links that could put the toad at risk.

“The toads have this incredibly delicate relationship to temperature,” Donnelly said. “If you start cooling off those springs, they might all freeze to death. And if you start heating up those springs, they might all boil to death.”

Asked about the temperature and water level changes, Ormat’s senior legal counsel, Laura Jacobsen, told me via email that small amounts of data from a single spring are “far from sufficient to establish the flow test impacted the springs,” especially with temperature readings “within the variable baseline range for that spring.” The company also pointed me to a Bureau of Land Management document concluding that flow tests “indicate little to no observed changes in spring discharge conditions.”

************

I’ve been shining a light on similar battles across the region through The Times’ Repowering the West series. I’m now writing Part 3, dealing with solar sprawl in southern Nevada. Next month I’ll travel to Idaho to report Part 4, about why the red state’s dominant power company set a goal of 100% clean energy even when lawmakers haven’t ordered it to do so.

In the meantime, Dixie Meadows is far from the only geothermal conflict I’m tracking. Another project contemplated by Ormat could be built just outside Gerlach, a Nevada town best known as the gateway to the Burning Man art and music festival. Local residents and Burning Man leaders are fighting to block exploratory drilling, saying a geothermal plant could industrialize their rural outpost and scare off tourists. The San Francisco Standard’s Maryann Jones Thompson wrote about the controversy.

I was also struck by a recent study from the U.S. Geological Survey, funded in part by Ormat, finding that populations of greater sage-grouse — an iconic Western bird known for its mating dance, and a prime example of the extinction crisis — “declined substantially in years following the development of the geothermal energy plants” in Nevada, as the Geological Survey described the study. The agency has built a mapping tool that it says can help companies find low-impact spots to build geothermal plants.

“It’s great that they’ve developed a tool that can identify areas that are more or less sensitive,” Ormat’s Thomsen said.

Ultimately, that’s what it’s going to come down to: finding the best places to put renewable energy. It’s as true for small-footprint geothermal plants as it is for sprawling solar farms, vast fields of wind turbines and lengthy power lines.

A person could wonder if the first step in renewable energy buildout would have been to work with companies to identify sites with less potential for wildlife and Indigenous concerns. Rather than set targets, make assumptions, fund companies, and when they are far down the road, say “oops, not there.”

Seems like we might have done better by making sure top-down determinations of what should be done with renewable energy installations are actually viable in the real world.

USFS SCIENCEx ASSESSMENTS WEEK

A raft of webinars…. Something for everyone on Smokey Wire….

SCIENCEx ASSESSMENTS WEEK, MAR. 27 – 31, 2023

2:00 to 3:00 p.m. ESTE

The Forest Service Research and Development SCIENCEx webinar series unites scientists and land management experts from across the US Forest Service and beyond.

SCIENCEx Assessments week will explore the data, tools, and approaches helping land managers with forest planning efforts — whether on National Forest System lands or state, Tribal, or privately-owned forestlands.

For more on the SCIENCEx webinar series or to view the archives, visit the SCIENCEx webinar page.

Monday, Mar. 27

Science for Forest Planning

  • Information Resources for Forest Planning | Jim Lootens-White
  • Streams, Springs, and Fens! Riparian and Groundwater-dependent Ecosystem Assessments for Forest Plan Revision​ | Katelyn Driscoll
  • Broadening Perspectives on Inclusive Forest Planning​ | Kristen Floress

Tuesday, Mar. 28

Research to Inform Recreation Management and Activities

  • Designing with the Americans with Disabilities Act in Mind |​ Robert Ross
  • Towards an Understanding of the Drivers and Effects of Recreation Displacement in Southern California National Forests |​ Alyssa Thomas

Wednesday, Mar. 29

Research to Inform Silviculture and Management Activities

  • Silviculture Research in Hardwoods and Mixedwoods: Still Providing the ‘How’ | Callie Schweitzer
  • Long-term Silvicultural Research Provides New Insights for Science-based Management| Mike Battaglia
  • Silvicultural Rehabilitation of Degraded Stands: Practical Ideas from Research in Northeastern Forests |​ Laura Kenefic

Thursday, Mar. 30

Ecosystem Services, Risks, and Benefits

  • Ecosystem Service Benefits of Wilderness: Changes over Time |​ Thomas Holmes
  • Deploying Nature’s Benefits for Conservation Finance in the Tahoe Basin |​ Matthew Sloggy
  • An Ounce of Prevention: Effects of Leaf Litter on Wood Decking Exposed Above Ground |​ Grant Kirker

Friday, Mar. 31

Forest Inventory and Analysis in Forest Management

  • Forest Inventory and Analysis in the Pacific Islands |​ Jonathan Marshall
  • Using Advanced Remote Sensing to Support Forest Inventory and Monitoring in Interior Alaska |​ Hans Andersen
  • Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis Data and Tools |​ Tonya Lister

Biden Admin Via Forest Service Approves Land Swap for Rio Tinto’s Arizona Mine

Copper core samples at Resolution’s processing facility. Photo by the NY Times.

Sometimes the Biden Admin goes with the interests of Indigenous groups and other times it seems to go against them. I wonder what we can see if we examine the pattern of what one might call the “flouts and touts” of various policies and reverse-engineer what interests might be calling the shots at what point in time. When- what kinds of projects, where, do they flout? When do they tout? Can we see flouting and touting in stories of various media outlets? And of course, if Indigenous groups disagree, how is that considered and reported? How does the Admin consider the opinions of elected Tribal officials versus other Tribal groups when they seem to be in conflict?

We can’t be sure that the Rio Tinto case is a flout, since we’re not sure whether the President could do anything differently.

Another interesting thing about this case is that the opponents are a group called Apache Stronghold, “a nonprofit group comprised of members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and others” and they are supported by people for religious liberty (the Becket Fund), which is another interesting twist on the issue. For those interested, that group is a conservative nonprofit, according to the NY Times.

Here’s a link to yesterday’s Reuters story.

– The U.S. Forest Service plans to re-publish an environmental report before July that will set in motion a land swap between the U.S. government and Rio Tinto (RIO.L)(RIO.AX), allowing the mining giant to develop the controversial Resolution Copper project in Arizona.

The move would be the latest blow to Native Americans who have long opposed the mine project, which would destroy a site of religious importance but supply more than a quarter of U.S. copper demand for the green energy transition.

The complex case centers around a land swap approved by Congress in 2014 that required an environmental report to be published, something the Trump administration did shortly before leaving office. President Joe Biden then unpublished that report in March 2021 to give his administration time to review the Apache’s concerns, though he was not able to permanently block the mine.

Meanwhile, Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit group comprised of members of the San Carlos Apache tribe and others, sued to prevent the transfer of the federally-owned Oak Flat Campground, which sits atop a reserve of more than 40 billion pounds of copper, a crucial component of electric vehicles. Several courts have ruled against the group.

Joan Pepin, an attorney for the Forest Service, told an en banc hearing of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that “the prediction for that (new environmental report) is to be ready this spring.”

The Forest Service is not waiting for the court’s ruling to publish the new report, Pepin said, adding that the agency does not believe an 1852 treaty between the U.S. government and Apaches gives Native Americans the right to the land containing the copper.

“This particular treaty is just a peace treaty. It doesn’t settle any rights to land and it doesn’t create any land rights,” Pepin told the court.

The 11 judges at the hearing questioned all sides about the legal concept of substantial burden and whether the government can do what it want with federal land, even if it prevents some citizens from fully exercising their religious beliefs. A full ruling is expected in the near future.

Wendsler Nosie, who leads the Apache Stronghold, said at a rally after the hearing that Pepin’s statements showed Biden – who controls the Forest Service – has not made opposition to the mine a “priority” for his administration.

“It’s not over. It’s just made us stronger, tougher, and deeply committed to our prayers,” Nosie said.

A Rio spokesperson said the company is closely following the case and respects the legal process, but believes “that settled precedent supports” the rejection of Apache Stronghold’s claims by a lower court. Rio has said it will smelt copper from the project inside the United States.

Representatives for the San Carlos Apache tribe were not immediately available to comment, nor were representatives for BHP, which is helping Rio develop the mine.

One wonders whether the Tribe itself has a position, or whether they are staying out of it. If individual members don’t agree what does that mean? As an earlier New York Times story reported

There are differing opinions on the merits of mining even on the San Carlos Apache reservation. Some people view the mine as an affront to their traditions, while others consider it an economic opportunity and a source of employment.

. There’s a lot of detailed context in that story.

I think this is also an interesting angle.. “President Joe Biden then unpublished that report in March 2021 to give his administration time to review the Apache’s concerns, though he was not able to permanently block the mine.”

Despite some organizations that blame Biden for not shutting down oil and gas leasing aka “living up to his promises” he does have to operate within legal boundaries.
Perhaps he can’t due to something related to the 1872 Mining Law. Does anyone know?

Finally, a shout out to all the FS employees working on this project!

A Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice

The 2021 Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking charges the Office of Science and Technology Policy to (1) review agency scientific integrity policy effectiveness and (2) to develop a framework for regular assessment and iterative improvement of agency scientific integrity policies and practices (Framework). In January, the Biden Administration released the Framework. It includes a “first-ever Government-wide definition of scientific integrity,” a roadmap of activities and outcomes to achieve an ideal state of scientific integrity, a Model Scientific Integrity Policy, as well as critical policy features and metrics that OSTP will use to iteratively assess agency progress.  Here is that definition:

Scientific integrity is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity.

The 2021 Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking also charges OSTP and NSTC to “review agency scientific integrity policies and consider whether they prevent political interference in the conduct, management, communication, and use of science …”  The “Model Scientific Integrity Policy for United States Federal Agencies” says this:

It is the policy of this agency to: 1. Prohibit political interference or inappropriate influence in the funding, design, proposal, conduct, review, management, evaluation, or reporting of scientific activities and the use of scientific information.

Ensure that agency scientists may communicate their scientific activities objectively without political interference or inappropriate influence, while at the same time complying with agency policies and procedures for planning and conducting scientific activities, reporting scientific findings, and reviewing and releasing scientific products. Scientific products (e.g., manuscripts for scientific journals, presentations for workshops, conferences, and symposia) shall adhere to agency review procedures.

It defines these terms:

Political interference refers to interference conducted by political officials and/or motivated by political considerations.

Inappropriate influence refers to the attempt to shape or interfere in scientific activities or the communication about or use of scientific activities or findings against well-accepted scientific methods and theories or without scientific justification.

I found it rather interesting, given the way the these terms are used, that the 2021 Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking actually says this:

Improper political interference in the work of Federal scientists or other scientists who support the work of the Federal Government and in the communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of the Nation, contributes to systemic inequities and injustices, and violates the trust that the public places in government to best serve its collective interests.

Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall establish and enforce scientific-integrity policies that ban improper political interference in the conduct of scientific research and in the collection of scientific or technological data, and that prevent the suppression or distortion of scientific or technological findings, data, information, conclusions, or technical results.

Deliberate or careless?  Could there be “proper” political interference, especially given the distinction made about “inappropriate” influence (which is defined in terms of “interference”)?

Any way, it’s good to know someone is working on this aspect of scientific integrity.  And it seems to be helping – compare these results of the Union of Concerned Scientists 2023 surveys of scientists at federal agencies with those from 2018.  (Unfortunately, while the 2023 survey includes USDA, it did not include the Forest Service.)

What Aspects of Wolf Management are the Responsibility of the Forest Service? Potential CBD Lawsuit

Colorado wolf photo from CPW
Thanks to the non-paywalled Cowboy State Daily...here’s the link.

Wolves that cross the border from Colorado into Wyoming may be shot on sight, and it’s up to the U.S. Forest Service to stop it, an environmental group claims.

The Center For Biological Diversity plans to file a lawsuit against the Forest Service in U.S. District Court unless the agency steps up to protect the wolves. That’s what the group claims in a letter sent to USFS and U.S. Department of Agriculture officials. The Forest Service falls under the USDA’s jurisdiction.

The possible lawsuit may initially seem like a legal dead end, because the Forest Service doesn’t manage wolves.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has jurisdiction over wolves in Wyoming, and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department is primarily in charge of the growing wolf population in that state.

But the Forest Service does have authority to shut down wolf hunting in its jurisdiction – and indeed already has shut down prairie dog shooting in parts of Wyoming, the Center for Biological Diversity claims in its letter.

In the case of wolves, the group argues that the Forest Service should declare a no-kill zone on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, headquartered in Laramie.

Center for Biological Diversity attorney Collette Adkins told Cowboy State Daily on Thursday that she couldn’t discuss the pending case in detail. However, she affirmed the group’s stance on the Forest Service having authority to stop hunting in some instances.

“That’s not a question at all, and forest supervisors do that regularly for various reasons, including for protecting an endangered species,” she said.

****

Despite not having any wildlife management authority in Wyoming, the Forest Service still has authority to ban the killing of wolves on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, thus giving them at least some degree of protection, the Center for Biological Diversity claims.

The agency has been negligent in that regard, the group says.

“The U.S. Forest Service has not issued any orders to close wolf hunting or trapping or otherwise protect wolves on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest,” the group’s letter states. “Nor does the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest have any standards or guidelines aimed at conserving wolves.

“In fact, the Forest Plan, developed in 2003, includes no mention of wolves at all.”

I wonder if that’s because there were not wolves there then?

Here’s the FS side on the prairie dog shooting question..

The Forest Service has shut down prairie dog shooting and should be able to do the same for wolves, the Center for Biological Diversity argues.

“As just one example of the Forest Service’s use of this authority to prohibit hunting, the Forest Supervisor has ordered a seasonal closure of prairie dog hunting on Thunder Basin National Grassland,” the letter states. “The Forest Service’s authority to restrict hunting on national forests has been repeatedly confirmed in the courts.”

Forest Service spokesman Aaron Voos recently told Cowboy State Daily that the agency implements seasonal closures of prairie dog shooting in some parts of the national grassland.

However, that’s not to protect the burrowing critters from being shot. Rather, it’s to protect raptors and other wildlife that feast on perforated prairie dog carcasses from getting lead poisoning from bullet fragments.

The Forest Service has shut down prairie dog shooting and should be able to do the same for wolves, the Center for Biological Diversity argues.

“As just one example of the Forest Service’s use of this authority to prohibit hunting, the Forest Supervisor has ordered a seasonal closure of prairie dog hunting on Thunder Basin National Grassland,” the letter states. “The Forest Service’s authority to restrict hunting on national forests has been repeatedly confirmed in the courts.”

Forest Service spokesman Aaron Voos recently told Cowboy State Daily that the agency implements seasonal closures of prairie dog shooting in some parts of the national grassland.

However, that’s not to protect the burrowing critters from being shot. Rather, it’s to protect raptors and other wildlife that feast on perforated prairie dog carcasses from getting lead poisoning from bullet fragments.

A 30-MPH Ebike

At the risk of stirring up another debate over Ebikes on the woods, I saw an ad for this Ubco 2×2 Electric Bike. AWD, 30 mph top speed, 75-mille range, no pedals. This is more of a motorcycle than a bike — the company calls it both an Ebike and a motorbike, which it is. “Whether you’re cruising up the Rocky Mountains or down into red rock canyons, you’ll never forget what you see from the seat of your electric motorbike.”

I have NO problem with such bikes on roads and trails where motorized vehicles are allowed. But they do not belong on other trails. Conflicts ahead as such Ebikes become faster and more powerful?

Why 1%? EPA Blames Utah and Wyoming for Denver’s Ozone Pollution

Here’s a Colorado Sun story..

This is about non-wildfire air pollution (ozone), but to my mind doesn’t make a strong case for EPA regs making sense. And of course, EPA uses maps with un-groundtruthed wildfire risks directly from an outside group, so there’s that, and their lack of coordination with other federal agencies on wildfire smoke… I’m not picking on them as an agency, but like the FS and BLM I’m sure there are things they are doing well and others not so well.

The EPA’s justification for the new good neighbor rulings, published in the Federal Register, says the agency’s well-established monitoring methods show Utah contributing more than the 1% threshold of regulated substances to other states. “Its highest-level contribution is 1.29 parts per billion to Douglas County, Colorado,” the EPA said.

That number appears small, but the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and the Regional Air Quality Council spend countless hours discussing strategies and policies to potentially shave a part or two per billion off summer ozone levels in the Front Range nonattainment area. Readings in recent summers have spiked above 80 ppb at some monitors.

At first, when I read this article, I was curious about the justification for 1%. It seems fairly, well, minimal.

Unfortunately, we don’t get to hear Utah’s side of the story because.. they are in litigation.
Colorado hasn’t joined in on the litigation despite pressure from environmental groups to support EPA (in blaming other states for our Colorado-generated problems?).

From a CPR story (that also talks about the relationship between ozone and wildfire smoke):

In 2014, Flocke and his NCAR colleague Gabriele Pfister conducted a state-commissioned aerial survey to track the ozone sources along the Front Range. The research found that the region has background ozone levels of about 40 to 50 parts per billion, which is short of the current federal health standard of 70 parts per billion.

Local emissions of air pollutants pushed air quality to unsafe levels. On days when ozone levels exceeded federal health standards, traffic and oil and gas combined are responsible for more than two-thirds of ozone production along the Front Range.

Colorado’s ozone landscape has likely changed in the seven years since the survey. Energy companies have installed more pipelines, cutting down on total emissions from oil and gas production. Over the same period, more people have arrived in Colorado and brought their cars with them. While the COVID-19 pandemic led to a reduction in Front Range traffic in the spring and summer of 2020, Pfister said state data show it has rebounded to record levels in Denver.

“There are basically just more cars on the road,” Pfister said.

When I first read the Colorado Sun story, I was puzzled by the mechanics of how pollution from Utah could fly over the western part of the state and lodge in Douglas County. A wise reporter friend suggested that perhaps Douglas County is in non-attainment, so the percentage is equally low in other counties, bu it doesn’t matter for them. This would make sense. I reached out to the reporter for the more information and name of his EPA contact but haven’t heard back.

Anyway, it seems like ozone is fundamentally an urban problem on the Front Range.. so why go after rural folks in Utah?

As it turns out, this came up last year in Wyoming, via the Cowboy State Daily.

The EPA, in an April 6 report, said Wyoming contributes up to 0.8 parts per billion to the Denver-Chatfield area “smog” — just more than 1%.

As a result, the agency wants to enact its “Good Neighbor” mandates that would allow it to place tougher greenhouse gas restrictions on Wyoming and several other states which contribute 1% or more to ozone pollution in “downwind” states.

The EPA early this month deemed the Denver-Chatfield area a “severe” violator of federal ozone, or smog, standards – a downgrade from its prior status of “serious” violation.

**********

Gov. Mark Gordon in a March statement called the “Good Neighbor” mandate an “attack on state-led approaches” moving “more authority away from the people to Washington, DC.”

Gordon also said the plan targets Wyoming and other Western energy-producing states, and seeks to penalize their energy industries.

“It will harm states like Wyoming who meet ozone standards and benefit more populous states that use our energy but do not meet their own standards,” Gordon continued. “EPA’s proposal does not ‘follow the science’ or the law and will unjustly discriminate against Wyoming industries.”

**********
The Cowboy Daily also raises the question about California..

In the same projection, California was expected nearly to double Wyoming’s chemical share of Colorado’s smog by contributing about 3 parts per billion to Colorado.

California also is expected to export about 40 times Wyoming’s ozone-chemical output nationwide, with 34 ppb total ozone-chemicals export.

And then there is this interesting critique of the EPA modeling from a Colorado engineer (yes, ozone is measured but of course, contributions are modelled), also from the Cowboy State Daily.

This is just one piece of the critique:

“EPA states that the average difference between the projected values and the actual values is 7.79 ppb (parts per billion of ozone-contributing chemicals),” reads Strobel’s letter to the governor.

Wyoming’s likely inclusion in the “Good Neighbor” restrictions is due to its projected 0.81 ppb contribution to Colorado’s total ground ozone, which is projected to be 71.7 ppb in 2023.
“If the model cannot project values with any more accuracy than 7.79 ppb for Chatfield,” wrote Strobel, “it is absurd for EPA to suggest that they can project that 0.81 ppb will come from Wyoming.”
If Wyoming’s projected contribution had been below 0.7 ppb, the state would not fall under the “Good Neighbor” restrictions.
“With such poor accuracy,” continued Strobel, “it is also absurd for EPA to claim that they can distinguish between 0.81 ppb and the 0.7 ppb threshold for requiring action.”

If you’re curious, you might wonder why Colorado isn’t a bad neighbor to Kansas.. it seems probably as there are no large urban areas in non-attainment.

It’s perfectly normal for federal agencies to find rationales to expand their power over states. But this one seems a little arbitrary and dare I say, capricious. A person could even wonder whether the political inclinations of the “bad neighbor” states have been somehow factored in..

Is Every Story Ultimately Political? Perhaps the WaPo Thinks So

Is everything political? It seems to be that politics is one filter to look at stories.  Climate is another filter.  A filter can help you see aspects of things.. on the other hand, it can filter out other aspects of things.  Kind of like the story of the blind people and the elephant.

As it turns out, the WaPo has hired political and climate reporters, so we can expect more of that. And we can expect the WaPo to encroach upon stories that would normally be “environmental disagreement” stories. In fact, they now have a newsletter called “your weekly non political political stories.”

If you’re new here: The Daily 202 generally focuses on national politics and foreign policy. But as passionate believers in local news, and in redefining “politics” as something that hits closer to home than Beltway “Senator X Hates Senator Y” stories, we try to bring you a weekly mix of pieces with significant local, national or international importance.

I always say we need to beware when organizations redefine commonly used English words. It’s hard to imagine any activity that might not have some kind of political or climate angle, but does the story benefit from that filter or obfuscate? That’s for us to examine and decide.

The story that intrigued me was the Maine Lobster vs. Monterey Bay Aquarium issue.

And the WaPo’s view of why this is a political story..

The politics: This has it all. A locally vital economic resource, interstate commerce, environmentalism. Trade-offs.

It’s fascinating. What might have been a business story, or an environmental story, is now a .. political story. No thanks, WaPo.

At the same time, I think we need to look at possible political angles for the behavior of.. well… politicians and agencies in the Executive Branch. We don’t know, or at least I don’t for sure, but I think they need to be considered. Especially when decisions don’t seem to make sense otherwise. Not that political decisions are bad, but understanding motives is probably good.