This is under the tab for “other”. I think most of them are rural schools funds but maybe not. NFF seems to have two $100 mill ish and one 50 mill ish all started in 2023.
***************
Also the Great Basin Institute is not a Keystone but did get 59 mill. Looks like that was for some NEPA, perhaps:
In recent years, GBI has scaled support for several post-fire planning needs for the US Forest Service. In 2022-23, the Sequoia, Inyo, Eldorado, Plumas, and Lassen National Forests have entered into agreements to provide specialist support and scoping services for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and Environmental Impact Statements to address post-fire needs after the Castle, Beckworth, Dixie, Caldor, French, Windy, KNP Complex, and Mosquito Fires, many of which comprise some of the largest wildfires in the history of the region.
**********************
Anyway, back to the Keystone Agreements. I think a diversity of groups with a track record of on-the-ground accomplishments is the way to go to spend BIL-IRA bucks. That being said, let’s look at this E&E News story:
The story provides a list of the groups with agreements:
The Nature Conservancy, American Forests, Trout Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Foundation, the Mule Deer Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Student Conservation Association, and the National Forest Foundation. Officials anticipate further agreements, including with tribes and tribal organizations, French said.
What all of these folks have in common (except maybe American Forests, which has tended to be more focused on urban and community forestry) is a track record of accomplishing things on the ground on National Forests.
The organizations, including hunting groups, have relevant experience and an interest in maintaining healthy forests, said Tony Wasley, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, a nonprofit conservation group representing organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Pheasants Forever. “It’s a proven track record by these organizations,” Wasley said, adding that projects funded through the agreements are still subject to National Environmental Policy Act reviews. “It isn’t just a blank check and you’re walking away from it.”
So it seems like a broad diversity of groups with different interests and affiliations, but also with a working track record.
In some cases, the organizations partnering with the Forest Service don’t see eye to eye with the Biden administration on forest policies, or they advocate for approaches such as an increased use of prescribed fire that remain contentious in Congress. The National Wild Turkey Federation, for instance, has cautioned the administration against aspects of its old-growth forest plan and has a history of supporting forest clear-cutting to create wild turkey habitat. The group was the Forest Service’s fourth-biggest buyer of timber in 2019, based on volume.
I’m not sure how much “prescribed fire” is contentious in Congress. We can ask “should there be a policy litmus test for federal grants?” “wouldn’t we be suspicious of a quid-pro-quo if these groups suddenly parroted everything that (some factions in) the Admin wanted? And “clearcutting?” yes, groups of people who like wildlife who like openings… tend to like openings.
The National Wild Turkey Federation’s agreement raises another question: How does the Forest Service, over a 20-year period, work hand in hand with organizations that don’t necessarily share Washington’s approach to managing forests?
It seems to me that given the list of organizations, and possibilities of future Admins, there will always be some who are more or less aligned with any given Admin. But it shouldn’t matter as not everything is political. There, I said it. Of course, E&E News was bought by Politico Pro so that might be their filter on the world.
While the story focuses on NWTG, and their potential alignment with R’s..
The federation has supported Republican-led legislation to step back environmental reviews of forest-thinning projects and to create larger categorical exclusions from NEPA reviews, calling a proposal by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) to do so a “huge step forward in protecting the nation’s forests.”
Some of us, of course, recall that TU’s Chris Wood was a political appointee in a D Administration:
“It is heartening to see the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s resources being put to good use,” said Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited. “This agreement builds on a long and productive partnership between the Forest Service and Trout Unlimited. Together over the years, we have already restored more than 400 miles of important fish habitat, reconnected more than 700 miles of habitat by removing barriers to fish migration, and improved hundreds of thousands of acres of National Forest System lands. We are excited to continue and expand on this work over the coming years.”
Also, the Senior Vice President, Policy at American Forests is Leslie Jones. Here’s what it says on the American Forests website:
*Leslie is on a full-time detail to USDA Natural Resources and Environment, effective February 2022 through February 2024.
Leslie Jones oversees our policy team’s collaboration with agency partners and the development of legislative solutions with federal congressional champions. Jones has over 25 years of experience in shaping conservation policy. Prior to joining American Forests in 2020, Jones served as deputy undersecretary and chief of staff for natural resources and environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where her work included overseeing the U.S. Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service on a variety of natural resource issues, including management of the 193-million-acre National Forest and Grassland System, and implementation of Farm Bill conservation programs on America’s farms, ranches and forests. Jones was also chief of staff at the global ocean conservation organization, Oceana, and general counsel for The Wilderness Society.
Not surprisingly, given that they seem to be the same people, American Forests tells us that “the Biden Administration continues to deliver as champions of America’s Forests”:
In response to the USDA Forest Service’s Notice of Intent to Amend Land Management Plans released today, American Forests President and CEO Jad Daley released the following statement:
The Biden-Harris administration continues to deliver as champions of America’s forests, helping to conserve and steward the nation’s old growth forests and the vast amounts of carbon they store. For too long, irreplaceable old growth forests have lacked a consistent and adaptable policy to support their conservation and management, but today’s announcement by the USDA Forest Service offers a needed new course.
One can wonder about potential conflict of interest here. Suppose in an R Admin, someone was detailed to an office and that the organization they were from was given a large grant from the agency they were detailed to.. seems a bit revolving door-ish. But maybe I’m missing something.
But what does CBD think?
Still, some environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, say they worry that the government is shifting too much of its own responsibility to contractors and, in some cases, handing forest management to groups more prone to cutting big trees than saving them.
“There are plenty of clearcuts on private and state lands that provide habitat for turkeys,” said Randi Spivak, public lands policy director with the CBD. “These agreements should not allow damaging logging on national forests in the name of ‘restoration’ when really, they are just clearcutting national forests to benefit a special interest group.”
What I sense from CBD is the concern that a bias of the organization could overwhelm the usual agency accountability procedures. Still since CBD is litigatorily inclined, and all projects will go through the same NEPA and litigation process as usual.. I think we’d have to dig a bit deeper into their concerns.
But NWTF is doing plenty of work of a non-clearcutting nature, as we shall see tomorrow. And from Andy Kerr, NW Timber Wars veteran -about Eastern forests.
Kerr said he believes federal forest managers and some conservation and hunting groups have united over the years to keep Eastern forests in an artificially young stage to protect hunting grounds — an allegation buttressed by a January 2023 article in the journal Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.
Unfortunately, the link to that paper did not come through from my source and I couldn’t find it looking at the journal. If anyone knows where I can find it, please send me the link. I am a bit skeptical as there is relatively little federal forest to be found among the Eastern forests, but we’ll see.
In general, it seems like the people quoted in this article are concerned about some of the groups and the nature of their fieldwork. I’m more concerned about some of the more nebulous or planning or strategy aspects of the agreements and how it might be that some NGOs are perhaps tasked with more thinking and writing work, with less expertise, than the Forest Service. With its own Research arm, and thousands of practitioners spread across the US, I don’t think they need help figuring out what “climate-smart” is. And there are accountability questions, which I think everyone from CBD to me and probably Congress, share. What are your concerns?