Sharon

Question About Forest Service Budget and R&D

by

A reader asked:

I had a question about the FY 2024 budget (which is recently approved) and the impacts on USFS Research Stations and R&D. It seems like there is a hiring freeze in at least some (if not all) research stations, and it seems like the discussion is that this is a result of some combination of budget shortfalls in the budget (a small cut) as well as some allocation issues within the Budget Modernization efforts. Does anyone know what is happening here, and if hiring will be starting again anytime soon?

I was also wondering, in a possibly related question, because the Trout Unlimited Keystone Agreement included that TU could be paid to:

• Developing the science and tools to address high priority concerns such as climate change, impacts of energy development, restoration of degraded habitats and populations, and control of aquatic invasive species,

It used to be that R&D dollars were said to be necessary for “the science” but I’ve been assured that NFS funds are fine to use for this nowadays.

People with information can post here or contact me directly. I will respect your anonymity.

Further Information on Oregon Mills and Region 6 Timber Production

by

Digging deeper on the topics of yesterday, I reached out to AFRC, who generously supplied further information, plus some FS contacts.

***********

The primary source for Forest Service timber accomplishments are the PTSAR reports.  You can find those here: Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment Reports (PTSAR) (usda.gov)

 

The chart below for Region 6 is based on this PTSAR data.  You’ll see that the Region saw an uptick from 2022 to 2023; however, our assertions of flat/declining outputs are based on comparisons of 2023 to 2019/2020.  The raw data that populated this chart is also copied below.  We saw a decline by over a third from 2020 to 2022.  The program remains about 18% below its 2020 levels.

 

Region 6201520162017201820192020202120222023
Timber Sold585595581635607724545460589
          

You’re correct in that timber trends are not the same across every National Forest in Region 6.  In fact, local trends are more relevant to the recent mill closures that we cite in our letter than total Region 6 trends.  The mills that closed over the past few months are all located in northwest Oregon.  So, the trends in western (specifically northwestern) Oregon are important to highlight.  The Regional uptick in 2023 shown in the graph above has mainly been a function of growth on eastside Forests, which don’t support westside mills, which are the ones that have closed over the past few months. The graph below shows timber trends for the Mt Hood, Willamette, and Siuslaw National Forests (and totals), which were all within the purchasing circle of the closed mills.  We saw nearly a 100 Million board foot drop from 2019 to 2022.  Even with a slight bump in 2023, these programs are still down by over a third from 2019 levels.

Finally, the BLM program in western Oregon cannot be ignored.  The three Districts below are in the purchasing circle of the closed mills.  Collectively, we’re seeing a 43% reduction from 2021 to 2024.  Note that the 2024 numbers reflect the assigned targets, not actual sold volume.

BLM timber data is not as formally organized as the Forest Service.  This site summarizes sold volume: Oregon Timber Sales Oregon/Washington BLM.  However, the BLM has additional volume every year not accounted for in these reports.  AFRC  acquires that “add-on” volume directly from the Oregon State office every year.

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

So, we might ask, what explains these patterns?  Here is what I heard from my FS sources, currently checking with BLM ones.  The Siuslaw is “steady Eddy.”

The Mt. Hood and Williamette notably suffered from the 2020 wildfires. In the second chart, it looks like the Mt. Hood worked its way back to 2019 levels but the Williamette not.  You might think “all those hazard trees” but that was held up by litigation, covered here at TSW, to the extent that the logs deteriorated and now the hazard trees that industry would have paid to remove, are being removed at taxpayer expense via service contracts.

There are two other issues I heard.. that timber attention ($, targets, people (not clear)) has been focused on the East Side in terms of moving things along in the Ten-Year Strategy.  And a generalized inability to fill positions.  I’d appreciate hearing from anyone, either via email or in the comments, who has additional ideas or experiences to add.

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

What to make of all this?  I was thinking about Seral on the Stanislaus and how they proactively did NEPA for future hazard trees.  I also vaguely remember potential zones of agreement about hazard trees, even in Oregon.  Perhaps the Region is doing a hazard tree NEPA decision for all forests that they could use when wildfire come along? If we believe that climate change will lead to more wildfires then wouldn’t this be proactive? Maybe the group assembled for the NWFP revision could work out the bare bones of an NWFP area hazard tree agreement in a couple of days?

E&E News Roundup of Hearing; AFRC Letter; Imports and Exports

by

The above is from this OEC website. You can click on it to see the numbers better.  I can’t attest to the accuracy of these numbers.  They are relevant to the story at the end.

Interesting E&E News article, and  I was curious about some things mentioned, perhaps readers can help out with more information?

First of all, there’s an AFRC letter that says in western Oregon:

The trouble is largely due to state-level policies that restrict access to timber on privately owned land, as well as to past damage from wildfires, the group said, citing the recent closure of three mills in western Oregon. But the federal government could help fill the gap by boosting timber harvests in national forests, the AFRC said, and make healthier forests in the process. “A logical outcome of historic Congressional investments to accelerate forest health treatments on millions of acres of at-risk Federal forests would be additional log supply to support the local infrastructure and workforces required to do the work,” said the AFRC, based in Portland, Oregon, citing the bump in federal spending through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act that included funding for hazardous fuels reduction, fire breaks and similar forest work. “This has not occurred in the West,” the organization said. In some cases, according to the group, supplies available from federal lands have declined or flat-lined since the enactment of the two laws.

Although most logs headed to mills in the Pacific Northwest come from privately owned land, the group said, mills that closed recently in Oregon relied on timber from public lands and cited a supply shortage in their decisions to shut down.

Perhaps some Oregon readers could see if there are other reasons as well for the closures, perhaps like Pyramid Lumber?

And is that true, that supplies from federal land declined after the infusions of $ from BIL and IRA? Here’s what AFRC said in their letter.

In fact, log supply from Forest Service and BLM lands in the Pacific Northwest has remained flat or decreased since the passage of the BIL and IRA. In Western Oregon, for example, the BLM timber program for Fiscal Year 2024 has been arbitrarily reduced by more than 25% from the previous year. These cuts also represent a 25% shortfall from the timber levels directed in the BLM’s current Resource Management Plan.

I’m not inclined to study the Cut and Sold report (although I’d volunteer with the FS to give advice on, and test a more user-friendly version), so I wonder what the FS did or didn’t do? And why did the BLM reduce their timber program? I also wonder about variability and if some forests did reduce and others didn’t.

**********

Environmental groups, for instance, are pushing for a ban on most logging in old-growth forests, but the AFRC specifically cited those areas as needing a more active management approach that includes timber harvesting to make them less vulnerable to wildfire.

“No one is asking the Federal Government to ‘clearcut old growth’ to generate more timber supply,” the AFRC said, asking lawmakers to advocate for timber production with top officials at the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. “We are asking the Federal Government to responsibly manage and steward public lands.”

I didn’t actually see that (my) bolded section in the letter.  Maybe others spotted that? It doesn’t make much sense to me as there is plenty of non-old-growth out there. Could be an editing faux pas.

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

The ongoing debate played out in Senate committee hearings last week, as Republican lawmakers pressed for increased timber production and streamlined environmental reviews that would allow Forest Service projects to move faster.

I wonder what the proposals were in detail, if there were any?

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

 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) mentioned the opening of a new mill in Carson City, Nevada. That project, a collaboration between industry and the Forest Service, will greatly help the region find a market for wood salvaged from wildfire areas, among other uses, she said.

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

In addition, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) and Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) reintroduced legislation — S. 3899 and H.R. 7609 — last week to let facilities generating electricity from forest biomass — such as forest thinnings — participate in the federal renewable fuel standard program. Their legislation, called the “Biomass for Transportation Fuel Act,” would also expand the program by allowing RFS credits for biomass taken off federal, as well as privately owned, lands. “Finding creative new incentives to keep this biomass off our forests’ floors is integral to the success of our state’s forest products industry and economy,” King said in a news release.

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

I wouldn’t have thought that that would be as much of an issue in Maine. I checked on Garamendi’s district and it is in the SF bay area, so not a place as worried about excess biomass, as say, the Sierra.  Anyone who knows more about this, please link more info in the comments.

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

King and other lawmakers also warned last week about the potential effects of anti-deforestation policy by the European Union, telling U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai that the regulations as written could hurt U.S. wood product companies. The policy, due to be enforced beginning in 2025 and requiring traceability to plots of land where trees were cut, could limit market access for U.S. producers, they said.

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

I was curious about where US exports wood products, so found the graphic above.  It’s interesting to me that Enviva, who actually did have tracing to specific plots of land,  just went bankrupt. 

Any forest economists out there who could explain more about this?

 

Some Stories About Housing and Some Reflections: III. The Concept of Rural Gentrification

by

I’m sure that US social scientists have examined rural gentrification, but I’m not up on current literature, so please link in the comments to any studies.

I did run across this Chinese paper  (2022) by Lu, Rao and Duan, that had a brief literature review from the worldwide perspective.

British scholar Parsons first observed the phenomenon of rural gentrification in a study about British residents’ classes in rural areas. The rural gentrification mainly refers to the urban middle class migrating to rural settlements, for living and recreational space, thus causing the change in the rural social class structure, and leading to the shortage of rural housing and the relocation of indigenous people [15]. Gentrification is a gradual process mainly initiated and maintained by immigrants. These gentrifiers may be urban middle- and upper-class residents with rich capital, such as retirees and “urban elites” (national economic elites and cultural elites), who pursue rural pastoral life in order to “escape” from the city [16,17]. They may be artists looking for cheap accommodation near the countryside and are described as well-educated low-income people [6,11]. The motivations of these migrants in rural areas are different from those in urban centers, where, for example, the middle class is attracted by employment and undervalued housing, whereas rural migrants are attracted by specific rural amenities, especially those related to the natural environment. Parsons and other British scholars have shown that the “gentry” in rural gentrification is not limited to some specific middle-class people with high economic level and social class, and economic level and class composition are not the only criteria to identify the gentry group in rural areas. Diversified social groups with different purposes are likely to become the subjects of rural gentrification. As long as the cultural capital and economic levels of immigrants are higher than that of local residents, rural gentrification may occur [17].
Rural gentrification is a complex process involving the migration of the urban middle class from cities to rural areas [18]. It has brought about four major changes: the transformation of rural class structure, the post-productive process of rural capital accumulation, changes in rural housing structure and the motivation of rural reform [19]. In the study of rural gentrification in Quebec, Guimond and Myriam also emphasized the complexity of rural gentrification at various levels, including social population, housing and economic impact, community and culture, material, environmental and political aspects [20]. Davidson and Lees point out that any form of contemporary gentrification should include: capital dominating the restructuring of the architectural environment, a large number of high- and middle-income newcomers, local residents’ displacement and landscape change. The restructuring of the architectural environment means that the built environment in rural areas is changed by the capital “reinvestment” of land owners, housing owners, investors, developers, etc., emphasizing ecological aesthetics and environmental governance [21]. The structure change of the rural population is the most outstanding impact of rural gentrification, involving the characteristics of the population moving from the city to the countryside. The aging of post-war baby boomers in the United States shows a strong willingness to move to rural life. It is estimated that 2.7 million baby boomers moved from cities to villages in the first 10 years of the 21st century [16]. Landscape can most intuitively describe the great changes in rural gentrification areas, such as the transformation of rural areas from primary production to consumption LED landscape, the changing housing tastes in rural areas and the rising real estate prices [22,23]. Displacement has always been an important result of gentrification, including population displacement, housing displacement and space displacement in rural areas [24]. In addition, rural gentrification also means injecting new classes and social structures into the destination, not only bringing better social capital and networks to the local community, but also triggering discussions on rural governance issues, such as local land use planning, environmental aesthetics and resource management [16,25].
The cause and influence of gentrification in rural areas can be interpreted from the perspectives of consumption and production [26]. From the perspective of consumption, rural gentrification highlights the existence of a “new cultural class” in rural space consumption. It suggests that the core of the economic form in the process of rural gentrification is an experience economy and an aesthetic consumption. In the process it also emphasizes the experience of rural cultural connotation and the formation of specific cultural taste. [17,27]. The “idyll” in rural Britain and the soothing “Rocky Mountain” lifestyle in rural western America have attracted highly skilled urban labor, entrepreneurs and retirees [16,22,28]. From the perspective of production, it emphasizes the redistribution of capital and profits to interpret rural gentrification, not from the perspective of people. N. Smith put forward the theory of the “rent gap” (the difference between the potential value of land and the actual value of land) to explain gentrification [29]. With the decline of rural traditional agricultural productivity and the weakening of agricultural policy protection, rural landscape, rural space and rural built environment become less attractive to capital, and the potential value cannot be realized as actual monetary value, which objectively requires the emergence of more diversified rural economy and investment models [30]. Globalization is seen as one of the main drivers of rural gentrification because the middle and upper classes, the main components of urban-to-rural mobility, benefit from globalized capital accumulation and appreciation of land or property values. They allocate their assets to highly comfortable rural destinations. For example, the rural gentrification in remote and comfortable areas in the United States reflects the spatial positioning of surplus capital accumulated by high-wage urban occupations in the globalized service industry [31,32]. Clark believes that the two explanations are complementary [33].

********

I’d also point out that both gentrification and tourism leads to a combined need for low-income workers.  So there is a correlated need for new lower income workers to move in to meet that need. At the same time, housing prices go up.  When you think about it, it’s surprising that communities are doing as well as they are.

 

Pyramid Mill Closure- Seeley Lake Montana and Rural Gentrification

by

Thanks to a TSW reader for this story. This fits into our ongoing theme of housing difficulties and the exodus of the working class in some Western communities. And if the economy is based on tourism, which doesn’t have high-paying jobs in general, it seems like these communities may be moving to a two-tier society. Perhaps with lower-end retirees and work-from-homers in the middle.  Also there is the idea that at some point, with these kinds of pressures, the timber industry could go belly-up just when people are coming around to it being helpful in keeping fuel treatment material from being burned into the atmosphere.  Meanwhile we have a housing crisis in many areas, more people are moving to these places (both migrants from other states and other countries), and wood is needed as a building material.  And we don’t want new communities to “sprawl,” (get larger), so densification is cool,  and yet ideas like Accessory Development Units don’t allow people to build equity via ownership.  And many increases in density come with decreases in urban trees.  Reminds me that old Thomas Sowell quote “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.” But is anyone looking at the big picture here?

It seems like a tangled ball of policy yarn, with no clear loose end to begin to unravel it.

Over the last five years, a “Now Hiring” sign has been posted along U.S. Highway 83, and the starting wage at Pyramid has been creeping up, Browder said.

He said other workers will be affected as well, such as loggers who are independent contractors and brought raw mateerial to Pyramid.

But he said getting mill employees and finding them places to live is difficult.

Housing creates costly employee attrition, because the company might train a worker who only stays six or eight months, Browder said: “That person leaves because they’re living in some crappy little trailer.”

He said it’s a problem for smaller merchants and retailers, too.

“We just have a serious housing problem in Seeley Lake, and it doesn’t just affect them,” Browder said of Pyramid.

The “blue collar demographic” will take a hit as a result, and Browder said he isn’t sure what young mill workers or couples will do instead because there’s little else in western Montana for them.

“All the working class people are being squeezed out,” he said.

Tourism has become a larger part of the economy, and more retirees who don’t rely on a local job for their income are part of the change in Seeley Lake, Browder said. But he volunteers at the food bank, and he said he anticipates a spike in demand there.

Generally, he said, attendance at community council meetings is low, and he hopes the news will at least bring more people with new ideas to the discussions.

**********

Kier, with the Missoula Economic Partnership, said if the mill closes, it will have ripple effects on the wood products and forest industry. He said he believes the Seeley Lake mill is one of the few that takes Ponderosa logs, which are plentiful in the region.

A couple of other businesses in Montana depend on byproducts from the mill, he said, including Roseburg in Missoula, which produces particleboard, and Weyerhaeuser in Kalispell, which offers plywood panels, among other products.

“Having adequate supply is important for those large manufacturers in terms of a regional system,” Kier said. “So it’s a really fragile system right now.”

He said it’s clear Pyramid intends to shut down, but a lot of people are emerging “by the hour” and talking about whether options exist for others to keep the facility open given it’s an important part of managing healthy forests. But Kier said it’s “premature to suggest there’s any real solution.”

“I hope that the folks who are in Seeley and the folks who are working at the mill know a lot of people care about what is happening to them,” Kier said.

In their closure announcement, Pyramid said “there’s no better solution” for the owners than to shut down the mill permanently. They were advised to close it in 2007 and didn’t, but this time, they said, the financial crisis is worse.

“The owners would like to thank our employees, both past and present, for their hard work and professionalism over the years,” Pyramid said.

“Their dedication has truly been the difference between Pyramid and its competitors. The owners would also like to thank Seeley Lake and the surrounding communities for their support over the years.”

Deschutes National Forest Annual Report 2023

by

 

Thanks to the Old Smokeys’ mailing list for this.  I’m up for posting any Forest annual reports that folks send.  We’re always talking about things people disagree about, controversies and difficulties.   I can’t even get journalists interested in the Stanislaus success story.  I think it’s important to try to highlight all the great work that Forest Service employees are doing.

Here’s the link.  Lots of great work and great photos.  Thanks Deschutes (and for this publication)!

Some Stories About Housing and Some Reflections: II. Denver Post Article on Mountain Towns’ Efforts, Including Building it Themselves

by

I’m posting these so that others can share if housing is or is not a problem in communities nearby to federal land, and if so, what are the communities doing about it?

The Denver Post has an excellent series, including one article on resort town efforts with inclusionary zoning.

Redefining affordable

At the core, inclusionary ordinances represent a realization that the free market, left to its own devices, won’t supply enough affordable housing to lower and even middle-income workers in expensive real estate markets.

“Housing is inextricably tied to economic success and our community can’t exist without a strong housing program,” said Betsy Crum, housing director for Snowmass Village. “People need to be able to live close enough to where they work, or the town will face an existential crisis.”

Click to enlarge

An influx of high-earning remote workers during the pandemic caused housing costs, already high, to surge even more in desirable places to live.

About 75% of remote workers in Colorado’s mountain resort areas in 2021 were making $150,000 or more a year, while only 30% of locals were making that much, according to the Mountain Migration Report from the NWCCOG.

In a fight for housing, locals were the ones who lost out to newcomers. In Snowmass Village, home prices have risen 81.5% in the last four years, in Steamboat Springs, they are up 81.5% and in Basalt, they are up 76.3%, according to Zillow.

Although it isn’t the norm, Aspen has a deed-restricted home valued at $2.5 million, in part so it can attract doctors to work in the city, Anderson said.

Along the Front Range, and across most of the U.S., affordable units target those earning between 30% to 80% of the area median income or AMI, with 60% as a common definition.

That range reflects federal rules for using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and Denver adopted that definition in its inclusionary ordinance. But in resort areas, 80% up to 200% is more typical in inclusionary ordinances.

“You can be in the workforce earning 150% of the AMI and be nowhere close to being able to afford a home,” lamented Hannah Klausman, director of economic and community development for Glenwood Springs.

That 150% number works out to an income of $104,250 a year for a single person and $148,800 for a family of four in Garfield County. The median price of a home in Glenwood Springs is $862,500, according to the Zillow Home Price Index.

And things only get more expensive the further up the Roaring Fork Valley someone goes. In Carbondale and Basalt, someone making double the area median income will struggle to find a home or apartment, she said.

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

In 2019, Glenwood Springs tightened the rules on short-term rentals and a year later it loosened rules on accessory dwelling units, which had been in place since 2013. Last year, the city created rules that made it easier for hotels to convert to residential units in exchange for deed restrictions, and this year it is considering rules to make it easier to add density.

But Glenwood also faces a balancing act. If it makes things too difficult, development could flow to areas with lower requirements and costs like New Castle, Silt and Rifle.

A criticism of inclusionary zoning is that it can make private development too costly or push it toward areas without requirements, an issue Denver will likely have to deal with. And like a big champagne powder day, the conditions have to be right.

“Whenever you introduce a subsidized component to a development project, it puts pressure on the upper price point to carry that,” acknowledged Tim Belinski, president of IND Ventures and a developer in Basalt.

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

But Belinski said inclusionary rules have been part of the equation for so long in the mountains, and the math mostly works, assuming land is available. Resort residents also are acutely aware that the economy needs to have enough workers to function, and housing is a key part of that happening.

Several communities, facing critical shortages, have put on their hard hats and started building housing themselves from dedicated revenue sources, like a portion of sales taxes, fees on deed transfers and short-term rentals. Colorado is also setting aside a share of state income tax revenues for housing.

“Local governments getting involved in building housing has increased since the pandemic. The need is very great, to what some communities were calling crisis proportions,” said Rachel Tuyn, director of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.

The city of Aspen recently completed 79 units in the third phase of its Burlingame Ranch project and up next is Lumberyard, which will provide 277 deed-restricted units on an 11.3-acre parcel near the Aspen Airport Business Center.

Avon is looking to annex 100 acres of state land to build 700 deed-restricted units and 60,000 square feet of commercial space. Winter Park Resort, with the support of the Town of Winter Park, is looking to build dorm-style housing with 330 beds. The Yampa Valley Housing Authority has a 10-year plan to build 1,100 housing units for those earning the median income in the Steamboat Springs area.

Some Stories About Housing and Some Reflections: I. High Country News Article on Building on Public Land

by

 

A recent High Country News story talks about housing developments on public land.

The U.S. government owns 49% of the land in the 13 Western states, including Hawai‘i and Alaska, according to Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research group based in Montana. (And that’s not counting all the land owned by the states, municipalities and the military.) In the remainder of the country, the feds own just 3.5%.

At the same time, the West is also experiencing a severe housing crisis: Seven of the 10 states with the greatest housing shortages are on this side of the country.

It’s not surprising, then, that the region’s combination of limited housing supply and vast tracts of undeveloped land has prompted the question: Could building on public lands help ease the housing crisis? From Colorado to California, politicians, academics and housing advocates are trying to find the answer. Here’s what you need to know.

***

Projects on federally owned land: These can occur when a federal agency, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), sells, leases or trades parcels of land for development. Due to the nature of federal holdings, these parcels are more likely to be on the outskirts of communities. In Nevada, for instance, the BLM has been selling land around Las Vegas to local developers since 1998, with profits flowing back into the state; a new bill could open up nearly 16,000 additional acres of land, most of it federally owned, for housing around Reno.

Federal lands in the Western U.S. managed by five agencies, using 2005 National Atlas data.Congressional Research Service

Lawson said we have two choices: Either build more densely on already available land, or open up new areas for development. The latter option, she said, is particularly pertinent in urban areas where land is scarce, and in rural communities that are surrounded by public lands. Teton County, Wyoming, for example, where Jackson is located, is 97% public lands.

In scenic places like Vail, Colorado or Bozeman, Montana, often referred to as  “gateway” communities, Rumore said that increasing the housing supply doesn’t necessarily result in affordability. “If you build more housing and your community is a very popular place to visit, then often that housing gets consumed by short-term rentals” or second homes, she explained. Unless new projects are “very carefully protected for the local workforce,” Rumore fears they won’t make a dent in the housing crisis.

ce

Lawson, the Headwaters economist, agrees, saying that it’s crucial for projects to explicitly tackle affordability. She is optimistic about one in Colorado, where the U.S. Forest Service leased a parcel of land to Summit County to build housing for middle-income earners, such as teachers and firefighters.

On the other hand, Lawson isn’t a fan of efforts that fail to guarantee affordability, such as the HOUSES Act sponsored by Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee. Research supporting the bill suggests that just 0.1% of the West’s federal lands could provide space for 2.7 million new homes. But the lack of affordability provisions in Lee’s bill has led some critics to call it the “McMansion Subsidy Act.”

While affordability is paramount, Lawson noted a few other factors to keep in mind.

  • The local economy: In areas like Jackson or Moab, where nearby public lands drive tourism, Lawson warned against developing any land whose loss could negatively impact the local economy— either by removing recreational areas or creating sprawl that detracts from the town’s appeal. As she put it, “It’s very difficult to undo these decisions.”

  • Infrastructure: When deciding whether a piece of land is worth developing, Lawson recommended examining the existing infrastructure. Are there water lines nearby? What about roads? If infrastructure is lacking, she said, residents need to understand that the cost of building it will likely fall on their shoulders.

  • Hazards: Communities should also ask whether building on a particular plot will increase the risk from natural hazards, especially wildfire.

Overall, Lawson believes housing projects on public land make a lot of sense when they’re close to towns and existing infrastructure. “It helps communities build more densely within their existing footprint,” she said. “Where I get concerned is when the parcels being talked about are on the fringes.”

 

 

 

 

 

New Sage Grouse Draft Plan Released: Incorporates Ideas from Obama and Trump Admin Plans

by

 

This is a great article by Scott Streater of E&E News; fortunately a TSW reader forwarded it to me, as it has a paywall.  It’s pretty comprehensive and hard to excerpt from, but I’ll try.

Here’s the link to the BLM press release, public meetings and the DEIS.  Here’s the BLM’s title and tagline;

BLM proposes stronger greater sage-grouse conservation plans

Analysis uses best available science and lessons learned to benefit species and western communities

I’ll try to hit the main points of the Streater article.

  1. It blends some of the Obama decision and the Trump era decision. Perhaps some horse-trading with western Govs? Or realizing that the 2015 approach doesn’t fit with desired renewable buildout?

In essence, the proposal outlined in a draft environmental impact statement Thursday is a compromise that a BLM news release emphasized draws on “the most successful components” of the Obama administration plans in 2015 that mandated protections for the most sensitive grouse habitat across 10 states and revisions to those plans the Trump administration approved in 2019 that gave states more leeway to greenlight projects near grouse breeding grounds and other sensitive habitat.

2.  Sgamma thinks that it’s an improvement

“It’s positive that the preferred alternative seems to be a blend between the other approaches and prior plans, which indicates that BLM is trying to find a workable balance,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance.

3. WEG and CBD don’t like it.

People familiar with the plan under development at the BLM previously said they expected the proposal to include 11 million “acres of critical environmental concern” to safeguard priority grouse habitat. But the preferred alternative released Thursday did not include ACEC designations, which provide strict land-use regulations that would severely limit livestock grazing, recreation and other activities. Other alternatives, which could still be selected in the final plan, do include the conservation designations.
The proposal would also remove one of the most contentious aspects of the 2015 plans: the designation of 10 million acres of “sagebrush focal areas” considered vital to the bird’s survival, where mining and oil and gas development would be prohibited. These areas will now be managed as priority habitat management areas.

My understanding is that the focal areas were added at the last minute by folks in DC, and stuck in some craws of some State folks who had worked collaboratively on effort.  If you remember from my story on  it, that my source said:

Folks from Garfield County, CO did a FOIA and found out that the changes were associated in time with meetings with various environmental organizations, including Pew. One particular idea added during these last changes was the idea of “focal areas”. The States went ballistic.

The Governors sat down with Secretary Jewell and tried to negotiate.

4. Pew Does Like It

For whatever reason, Pew seems to have an outsized influence on federal decision making under this Admin and also the Obama Admin, so this could be significant.

Marcia Argust, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ U.S. Conservation program, applauded the BLM “for bringing the latest science, including planning for climate impacts, to this round of sage grouse plan updates.”

5. If Grouse don’t like roads and footprints of O&G operations, they probably don’t like roads and footprints of renewable energy and transmission lines.

This has become an issue as the Biden administration works to build renewable energy projects on federal lands as well as the transmission lines needed to carry that green energy to market. BLM press materials announcing the proposal mentioned “clean energy projects” in discussing how the plans will allow for multiple uses “in a manner that limits impacts to sensitive resources and can also help combat climate change — the main driver of greater sage-grouse habitat loss.”

Actually, what the press release says is  “Populations once in the millions now number fewer than 800,000, largely due to habitat loss exacerbated by climate change, such as drought, increasing wildfires, and invasive species.”   Habitat loss seems to be the actual main driver, not climate change.

6.  RMP Amendments Around 2015 Sage Grouse Plans for Transmission Lines.

The BLM this month announced it was exploring amending three federal land-use plans to work around mandates in the 2015 grouse plans limiting the size of transmission lines and their proximity to priority grouse habitat. The BLM concedes it might need to do so in order to approve the 235-mile-long Greenlink North power line in Nevada that’s a Biden administration priority due to renewable energy

Hopefully those transmission lines will be well-maintained..and not cause further fires which are bad for sage grouse.

Human Being Throws Shade at Oregon State Prof Johnston and Blue Mountain Forest Partners

by

As you know, I am a fan of Blue Mountain Forest Partners and the entire post Timber Wars peace-seeking enterprise.
So this story from Daily KOS struck me as odd.

The court case took a turn when James Johnston, an Oregon State University assistant professor, filed an amicus brief supporting the Forest Service. The amicus brief included a letter that Johnston and 14 other forest ecologists signed that contended the six conservation groups’ arguments “are designed to give the impression of scientific controversy where no meaningful controversy among scientists exists.”

Many non-industry ecologists disagree with the sentiments in Johnston’s letter. More than 100 independent scientists signed an open letter to the Forest Service in 2020 that argued, “removing protections for large trees is highly controversial from a scientific perspective.”

When Jerry Franklin signed the letter, he wasn’t a minion of timber industry but there’s a bit of an implication.  “Independent” researchers, regardless of quantity, may also know less about the forests involved.

“There is scientific controversy regarding the removal of large old trees and forests preemptively before fire burns,” says an experienced ecologist that wishes to remain anonymous. “[L]ess than 1% of thinned areas experienced fire annually.

Many acres are thinned and also experience wildfires. I’m not sure where the 1% figure comes from. It sounds relevant but may not be. I’m a little leery of scientists who “wish to remain anonymous.”

The USFS and its supporting consultant are promoting cutting of large old trees in the name of “restoration,” yet in the six eastside national forests, […] the largest 3% of trees on inventory plots account for 42% of the biomass carbon.”

“Only a very small percent – 8% – of all the plots have the large-tree co-occurrence of ponderosa pine and grand fir that is their primary reason for doing away with the protections for big trees. The fact that 92% of the forested landscape does not fit their rationale to open up the entire landscape to large tree logging is a key part of the scientific controversy,” adds the anonymous ecologist.

Johnston was the lead author of a paper that showed diameter limits on logging hindered forest restoration in eastern Oregon. The research was funded by the Forest Service and Blue Mountains Forest Partners, a forest collaborative operated by and for private timber industry interests.

(my bold)

More than half of BFMP’s Board Members, including their President, have direct ties to the timber industry.

I think Susan Jane, for example, has “direct ties”  but not the kind of ties that a reader might think- based on the way this is written. Here’s their board.

The collaborative’s Executive Director said BFMP “staked extensive political capital on the validity of an alternative approach” to the 21-inch rule in a letter to the Ochoco National Forest’s Forest Supervisor.

Johnston says that all of his papers “are robust and objective,” given that they went through peer review.

He believes that the large trees likely to be logged as a result of the 21-inch rule’s amendments “have little value to most timber operators” and that “the most highly valued trees [in eastern Oregon] are smaller ponderosa pine.” However, the owner of Rude Logging, an AFRC member, mentioned in an article that sturdy pines over 21 inches are more valuable than smaller pines when discussing the benefits of the Forest Service’s decision to eliminate the 21-inch rule.

The below is also a little weird.

Johnston also consulted for the Forest Service during the 21-inch rule amendment process.

“It’s my job to provide information to land managers, members of the general public,” says Johnston. “[The] Forest Service asked me for information about their revision, and I provided them information upon request just as I do for anyone and everyone that asks me, including conservation groups.”

A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that a Forest Service Special Project Coordinator emailed Johnston about payment for his consultation work. The Special Project Coordinator asked him to send them an invoice and said the Forest Service set aside $2,500.

Johnston says that he cannot find that email and that he has no recollection of reading it. “I never invoiced the Forest Service. I’m unaware that they set any money aside for me. They didn’t pay me any money,” adds Johnston.

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

Timber industry representation

Forest Service interveners AFRC noted that Johnston filing an amicus brief was peculiar. “Participation from scientists in cases like these is uncommon, which signals that the 15 forest ecologists felt strongly that the court should be provided with an accurate portrayal of the state of the science,” stated an AFRC newsletter.

Two attorneys from Northwest Resource Law PLLC, an AFRC member with a history of representing timber industry interests, represented Johnston in his amicus brief. Johnston declined to comment on his choice of legal representation, citing the ongoing court case. However, he ignored requests for comment after the case ended.

One of Johnston’s Northwest Resource Law attorneys participated in a legal presentation at AFRC’s 2021 annual meeting. The presentation explained how AFRC develops legal precedent, defends timber volume, and defends its members.

You say peculiar, I say uncommon.  Maybe it should become more common in cases in which “the science” is at issue? And was Johnston supposed to find another lawyer for free, and if no one volunteered, simply give up because AFRC is tainted- according to some?

The comments are a bit of a hoot. Most are about Trump. In response to one comment that articulated the case for thinning, the author said:

Oh look — someone decided to show and spread industry propaganda here. You’re greatly exaggerating the need for thinning and the harm of wildfires (for obvious reasons). And if you think logging is such an ecological necessity than surely you must agree that the industry should be nationalized, right?

At first I thought it might be an AI story since the claims about BMFP and Johnston seemed not to be true, but sounded plausible if you don’t have previous knowledge. Now I’m not as sure.. Jon has pointed out that outlets need content, and may not be careful as to the accuracy thereof. Perhaps that’s the case here.