Sharon

Blast From the Past: Heritage Forest Campaign Yesterday, Climate Forest Campaign Today

by

One of the points I like to make about our forest policy world is that it is a great space for folks raising families and with other commitments. You can take a few years off (or possibly decades) and come back and not really miss much.  Thanks to the TSW reader who found this hearing from the year 2000.  If you swapped out “Climate Forest Campaign” for “Heritage Forest Campaign” and OG for Roadless, and  Biden for Clinton-Gore, and probably increased the budget figures, it sounds like the same thing, and I think the questions asked are still worth pursuing.  Sorry about the formatting.  This is just Chenoweth-Hage’s introductory statement, I didn’t read the rest, there are 128 pages. Might be other interesting stuff there.

Recently , one of the lead stories in Philanthropy magazine was about foundation funding of environmental organizations . Now , the article said that today foundations have much of the public agenda , and nowhere more so than in the area of environmentalism , where foundations collectively spend upwards of $ 500 million per year that we know of . 

Today we are here to analyze the relationship among large foundations , environmental groups , and the Federal Government in Federal public land management policy , in regards to recreation , timber harvests , mining , and other public lands issues . We will also explore the impacts of these policies on local communities . Environmental groups are relying more and more on a core of wealthy , nonprofit foundations to fund their operations . 

The largest environmental grantmaker – the $ 4.9 billion Pew Charitable Trusts – gives more than $ 35 million annually to environmental groups . Other large wealthy foundations such as the Turner Foundation , W. Alton Jones , and Lucile and David Packard Foundations , are not far behind Pew in their grantmaking to environmental groups . 

Foundations have funded environmental advocacy campaigns for more wilderness , curtailing timber harvests , and mining , breaching dams , and Federal control of ecosystem planning . An example of this type of activity is the Heritage Forest Campaign , the subject of an oversight hearing on February 15 , 2000 , by the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health .

The Heritage Forest Campaign , a coalition whose sole purpose appears to be lobbying the Clinton- Gore administration to implement the Roadless Initiative , which would withdraw up to 60 million acres of national forest lands from multiple use . This campaign is largely organized and funded by tax – free grants from charitable foundations such as the Philadelphia based Pew Charitable Trusts , with $ 4.9 billion in assets – the fifth largest U.S. charitable foundation . 

Now , since September 1998 , Pew has given the National Audubon Society more than $ 3.5 million in tax – free grants to organize the Heritage Forest Campaign , a coalition of about a dozen  environmental groups . The sole objective of the campaign appears to be the creation of widespread public support for the Clinton –  Gore administration’s initiative to restrict access on 60 million acres of national forest lands . 

The Heritage Forest Campaign illustrates several potential problems with foundation – financed environmental political advocacy , namely the lack of fair , broad – based representation , and the absence of accountability . Particularly disturbing is this administration’s acquiescence to the campaign in the setting of policy . 

At a recent hearing on the Roadless Initiative , I asked George Frampton , Director of the Council on Environmental Quality , for the names of all those attending any meetings he had held regardinging the development of the Roadless Initiative . The list he sent in response is a who is who in the environmental community . Even more telling is that not one individual representing recreation , industry , academia , county commissioners , or local schools were in attendance . Only representatives of the national environmental groups participated . 

Not only was the public excluded during these meetings , but so was Congress . The administration’s Roadless Initiative appears to be an attempt to bypass the role of Congress . Under Article IV , Section 3 , of the United States Constitution , Congress possesses the ultimate power over management and use of lands belonging to the United States . 

If the Roadless Initiative is universally popular , why can’t the Heritage Forest Campaign get it enacted by Congress through the normal legislative process ? Administrative directives , such as the Roadless Initiative , bypass Congress and centralize policymaking authority within the hands of unelected bureaucrats in the execu- tive branch . 

Foundation-funded advocacy groups make backroom deals , thus denying the average citizen a voice and input into the policy through their elected representatives in Congress . As a result , our Government becomes more remote and unresponsive to the needs of the average citizen . 

To whom is the Heritage Forest Campaign accountable? This campaign is put together by foundations, not the participants . The grantees are accountable to the foundations that fund them , not their own members . Foundations have no voters , no customers , and no investors . The people who run big foundations are part of an elite and insulated group . They are typically located hundreds or even thousands of miles from the communities affected by policies they advocate .

They receive little or no feedback from those affected by their decisions , nor are they accountable to anyone for promoting policies which adversely affect the well – being of rural people and local economies . Today’s witnesses will tell us how their communities are being crushed by an inaccessible and faceless movement , wielding great power and influence . 

The role of large foundations in funding environmental advocacy raises some fundamental questions . Foundation wealth shapes public policy at the expense of all counter views . Even worse , those skeptical of foundation – supported policies are often smeared by foundation –funded media campaigns in an attempt to marginalize them in the debate . Even alternative environmental solutions are rejected out of hand as environmental groups mold their programs and their agenda to please the large grantmakers . 

Does foundation – financed advocacy prevent full and fair public debate on public lands issues ? Is the average citizen’s voice and input in the government decisionmaking process drowned out by foundation – funded advocacy groups ? 

The most fundamental question of all is , what happens to the towns and communities affected by policies resulting from foundation – funded advocacy ? The people living in these communities are left with a ruined local economy . Their towns lack the income to provide even basic services . Their schools have no revenue to teach their children. 

The important issue here is whether the foundation strategies used to fund the environmental movement are buying undue influence for those groups on public lands policy . I believe it will become very clear during this hearing that this isn’t an issue concerning the environment , but rather one concerning power and its use for political ends , with rural communities being trampled in the process.

**********

Now, Rep. Chenoweth-Hage was appropriately concerned for rural communities as she represented Idaho.  At the same time, today, these policies influence all kinds of communities near Federal lands.  Another difference between then and now is our interest in the voices of Tribes, ethnic minorities and the poor and working class- marginalized communities.  How are these folks (say folks from poor rural communities)  represented on Boards and decision-making in these foundations?

“The important issue here is whether the foundation strategies used to fund the environmental movement are buying undue influence for those groups on public lands policy.” IMHO this question is still valid.

Finally, what is the endgame of these foundations, if they have one? Is it the same old “no oil and gas drilling, no mining, no grazing, no commercial logging, no OHV’s”?  I don’t know that we know, nor can I imagine who would have the political power to have that conversation.

Lawsuit Over 15 Acres on the Pisgah-Nantahala: New Forest Plans and Previously Approved Projects?

by
Mature trees on Brushy Mountain in Nantahala National Forest in August. Photo: Jack Igelman / Carolina Public Press

I’d like to point out to any FS leadership who read TSW that folks on the Forest wouldn’t talk to me to tell their side of the story.  So they are being good employees.  Problem is, if it weren’t for retirees who happen to keep up with the details (retirees like this being rare and threatened by loss of interest), we would never hear the FS side- unless there is an objection response on the same points. Maybe this would be a good application for AI.. “find the FS statements about … in the EA, response to comments and objections.” Still, I don’t think the Cone of Litigation Silence is good for public understanding, trust and support.

Anyway, here’s a link to Jack Igelman’s recent article on the issue. You can follow him on TwitX @ashevillejack.  I’m not a legal person, as everyone knows, so there are some quotes from me that are off the top of my head about why these 15 acres are of concern.  Conceivably with the same funding invested, the plaintiffs could buy their own 15 acres and manage it however they wanted.  Maybe our friends at SELC will weigh in.  Kudos to Jack for reading the EA!

The agency is obligated to manage the forest along the Whitewater River as a wild and scenic river corridor, which limits management options. However, timber harvesting is allowed to occur as long as it does not harm the river’s outstandingly remarkable values or degrade its water quality. The wild and scenic corridor extends about one quarter-mile on each side of the river.

“This timber prescription takes it backwards,” said Nicole Hayler, executive director of the Chattooga Conservancy. “The Forest Service has a track record of management activities in eligible areas to basically whittle away at the eligibility.”

Will harvesting “harm the values” or “whittle away at eligibility”?  I don’t think we can judge without the prescription. (NHP is the natural heritage program.)

In the Southside Project’s final Environmental Analysis released in 2019, the Forest Service included a response to objections that the project analysis failed to analyze impacts to state natural areas.

The NHP determined that portions of the stand are dominated by white pine, an artifact of previous land use that is not naturally occurring.

According to the NHP, “It would be beneficial to remove the white pines from this stand, and then manage the area after harvest in such a way to restore the natural community” while acknowledging that some areas along the Whitewater River are in excellent condition.

The NHP did not respond to CPP’s interview request.

But if it’s good to remove the white pines, then maybe taking some more trees and getting openings for the “natural community” is a good idea.  Again, it would be nice to see the prescription.

The timber harvest prescriptions for the tract “require harvesting much more than white pine,” SELC attorney Patrick Hunter said. “We can say with certainty that the NHP’s request to limit logging to white pine is not reflected in the Forest Service’s final decision.”

But did the NHP say to limit the logging to WP? What other species are there? Is taking out the WP and other species an opportunity to increase tree species diversity or wildlife habitat?

Although the lawsuit includes a relatively small parcel of land, Friedman said that the court’s ruling could establish legal precedent around the influence of new forest plans on projects initiated and authorized under prior plans.

“The same groups who didn’t want certain projects before will still not want them” after a forest plan is finalized, she said. “If they feel strongly enough about them and have the financial wherewithal, they will litigate those projects. That’s just the way it works for most of the country; it’s business as usual. “

Litigating forest restoration projects in the Forest Service’s Southern region, however, are less frequent compared to other parts of the country, such as the Northern or Pacific Southwest region. There has been just one forest restoration project litigated in the Southern region which stretches from Texas to Virginia since 2003.

Hunter told CPP this is the first time SELC has initiated litigation against the Nantahala or Pisgah National Forest.

Whether the case is settled inside or outside of court, Friedman said changing an existing agency decision may set a precedent for other projects and other national forests.

According to Hunter of the SELC, the lawsuit seeks to validate the understanding that activities occurring within the national forest must be consistent with the current forest plan.

He noted that the complaint could reinforce existing precedent citing a 2006 decision against the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee in which the court ruled that a timber harvesting and road building project must be made consistent with a revised forest management plan that went into effect after the projects’ authorization.

The legal action reflects broader concerns about balancing the need for timber harvesting to restore the ecology of the forest while preserving ecologically significant areas and underscores the complexities of managing public lands.

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

Of course, the Cherokee NF is indeed in Region 8, so I guess the difference is whether the project is a “restoration” project or a “logging” project.  I would only offer that what the FS sees as a restoration project (with tree removal), other entities often see as a “logging” project.  This is a real side trip-  but I ran across a paper by Miner et al. from 10 years ago (no paywall) that had this graph. The authors characterized these as “land management” cases, not necessarily vegetation management cases.

*******

David Whitmire, of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, which represents the interests of fishers and hunters in Western North Carolina, said the lawsuit could, however, slow down forest-restoration work.

“I would rather see money spent on projects rather than lawyers,” Whitmire said. “The Forest Service is having to back up and deal with the lawsuit. It takes away a lot of resources that would otherwise benefit the forest.”

I’d only add that if this case sets precedent for forest plans being retroactive for ongoing previously approved projects, I think it might have two effects: first that Forests will not want to do plan revisions. When I worked in Region 2, many forests were not enthused about plan revisions anyway (reopening large numbers of disagreements to what end?).   Second is that if they are in revision, they would seemingly be less inclined to give areas with ongoing projects more restrictive designations.  It seems that both of these co-evolutionary responses by the FS would be against what plaintiffs would ultimately prefer.

But perhaps the plaintiffs will weigh in.

Sierra Club Agrees with “Right Wing Groups and R Politicians” on NACs: NY Times Article

by

I always like it when seemingly unusual combinations of people agree.  Here’s an NY Times story. Their headline is a little different from mine (it’s an economic reporter in the economy section).

Nature Has Value. Could We Literally Invest in It?

“Natural asset companies” would put a market price on improving ecosystems, rather than on destroying them.

We’ve discussed this before.. what could go wrong with the financial industry getting involved in land management? They’ve done so well with the mortgage industry. And at that time, their regulators were either in bed with the regulated, and/or asleep at the wheel.  But since they apologized and paid everyone back, we should give them a second chance.  They didn’t?

If there are willing buyers and sellers, conceivably the buyers could get more from selling ecosystem services without folks at financial markets taking their cut. It’s interesting that in the first few paragraphs, it’s characterized as “right-wing groups and R politicians are against it and “even” conservationists wary of Wall Street. Note also that Mr. Eger has the chance to respond to concerns in the article; it’s interesting to see who has a chance to respond and how far the back and forth goes.   Also the public lands question isn’t mentioned, which I think caused the concern of western R’s.

Picture this: You own a few hundred acres near a growing town that your family has been farming for generations. Turning a profit has gotten harder, and none of your children want to take it over. You don’t want to sell the land; you love the open space, the flora and fauna it hosts. But offers from developers who would turn it into subdivisions or strip malls seem increasingly tempting.

One day, a land broker mentions an idea. How about granting a long-term lease to a company that values your property for the same reasons you do: long walks through tall grass, the calls of migrating birds, the way it keeps the air and water clean.

It sounds like a scam. Or charity. In fact, it’s an approach backed by hardheaded investors who think nature has an intrinsic value that can provide them with a return down the road — and in the meantime, they would be happy to hold shares of the new company on their balance sheets.

Such a company doesn’t yet exist. But the idea has gained traction among environmentalists, money managers and philanthropists who believe that nature won’t be adequately protected unless it is assigned a value in the market — whether or not that asset generates dividends through a monetizable use.

The concept almost hit the big time when the Securities and Exchange Commission was considering a proposal from the New York Stock Exchange to list these “natural asset companies” for public trading. But after a wave of fierce opposition from right-wing groups and Republican politicians, and even conservationists wary of Wall Street, in mid-January the exchange pulled the plug.

That doesn’t mean natural asset companies are going away; their proponents are working on prototypes in the private markets to build out the model. And even if this concept doesn’t take off, it’s part of a larger movement motivated by the belief that if natural riches are to be preserved, they must have a price.

*********

A scam with the best of intentions for using the money is still.. a scam.  Was the SBF trial so long ago?

So in 2017, Mr. Eger founded the Intrinsic Exchange Group with the goal of incubating natural asset companies, NACs for short. Here’s how it works: A landowner, whether a farmer or a government entity, works with investors to create a NAC that licenses the rights to the ecosystem services the land produces. If the company is listed on an exchange, the proceeds from the public offering of shares would provide the landowner with a revenue stream and pay for enhancing natural benefits, like havens for threatened species or a revitalized farming operation that heals the land rather than leaching it dry.

If all goes according to plan, investments in the company would appreciate as environmental quality improves or demand for natural assets increases, yielding a return years down the road — not unlike art, or gold or even cryptocurrency.

*********
Unexpected Headwinds

Mr. Eger was dismayed. The most powerful forces arrayed against natural asset companies were people who wanted land to remain available for uses like coal mining and oil drilling, a fundamental disagreement about what’s good for the world.

OK, well for sure I’m not a powerful force.  But are we willing to take Mr. Eger’s word for the “forces arrayed against” the idea? Might they have interviewed one of the R politicians for example?

But opponents also made spurious arguments about the risks of his plan, Mr. Eger said. Landowners would decide whether and how to set up a NAC, and existing laws still applied. What’s more, foreign governments can and do buy up large tracts of land directly; a license to the land’s ecological performance rights would create no new dangers.

There is also pushback, however, from people who strongly believe in protecting natural resources, and worry that monetizing the benefits would further enrich the wealthy without reliably delivering the promised environmental upside.

“If investors want to pay a landowner to improve their soil or protect a wetland, that’s great,” said Ben Cushing, the director of the Sierra Club’s Fossil-Free Finance campaign. “I think we’ve seen that when that is turned into a financial asset that has a whole secondary market attached to it, it creates a lot of distortions.” Another environmental group, Save the World’s Rivers, filed a comment opposing the plan partly because it said the valuation framework centered on nature’s use to humans, rather than other living things.

To Debbie Dekleva, who lives in Ogallala, Neb., the prospect that a natural asset company could enroll large tracts of land seems like a very real threat. For 36 years, her family has worked to commercialize milkweed, a wild plant that produces a strong fiber and is the only thing that the caterpillars of imperiled monarch butterflies will eat. Ms. Dekleva pays local residents to collect the pods from milkweed stands with permission from friendly landowners, and then processes them into insulation, cloth and other products.

That sounds like a type of business that might contribute to a NAC’s value. But Ms. Dekleva suspects that she wouldn’t be part of it — faraway investors and big companies might lock up the rights to milkweed on surrounding land, making it harder for her to operate.

“I think that whoever writes the rules wins,” Ms. Dekleva said. “So let’s say Bayer is doing regenerative agriculture, and they’re going to say, ‘And now we get these biodiversity credits, and we get this, and we get this, and we get this.’ How does someone like me compete with something like that?”

Such opposition — the kind that stems from deep skepticism about financial products that are marketed as solving problems through capitalism, and questions about who is entitled to nature’s gifts — may be hard to dislodge.

Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t really an R/D breakdown.. remember Occupy Wall Street? Also I think PERC is fairly pro.

Mr. Eger said he built safeguards into the proposed rule to guard against concerns like Ms. Dekleva’s. For example, each company’s charter is supposed to include an “equitable benefit sharing policy” that provides for the well-being of local residents and businesses.

It sounds like “trust us, things will be swell.”  Trust is a function of transparency and accountability for Wall Street, just as much as for wildfire practitioners.

For now, Intrinsic will seek to prove the concept in the private markets. The company declined to disclose the parties involved before the deals are closed, but identified a few projects that are close. One is attached to 1.6 million acres owned by a North American tribal entity. Another plans to enroll soybean farms and shift them to more sustainable practices, with investment from a consumer packaged goods company that will buy the crop. (The pilot project in Costa Rica, which Intrinsic envisioned as covering a national park in need of funding to prevent incursions from arsonists and poachers, stalled when a new political party came to power.)

And the concept remains attractive to some landowners who’ve managed to wrap their heads around it. Take Keith Nantz, a cattle rancher who has been trying to build a vertically integrated, sustainable beef operation across the Pacific Northwest. He and a few partners would like to move to less chemically intensive grazing practices, but banks are hesitant to lend on a project that could reduce yields or jeopardize crop insurance coverage.

A natural asset company could be a piece of his financing puzzle. And to Mr. Nantz, the opposition comes mostly from a place of fear.

“There’s nothing being forced by a government or state or organization to be a part of this or not,” he said. “We can choose to be a part of this, and hopefully it’s a great opportunity to bring some capital.”

Again, the public land part is not mentioned. This seems like an unusual oversight for the reporting.

(The pilot project in Costa Rica, which Intrinsic envisioned as covering a national park in need of funding to prevent incursions from arsonists and poachers, stalled when a new political party came to power.)

Why don’t people just give the park money to prevent incursions (hire people to do a potentially dangerous job)?  Why does it need to go through a complex financial instrument with intermediaries getting their cut?  It seems to me that, generally, the history of complex financial instruments has not been good.

Pumped Hydro, FERC and Policy that Tribes Approve Projects on Tribal Lands

by

In this story,

Federal officials Thursday denied preliminary permits for multiple pumped storage hydroelectric projects proposed on the Navajo Nation that would have required vast sums of water from limited groundwater aquifers and the declining Colorado River, citing a lack of support from tribal communities.

In the order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced it was implementing a new policy requiring that any project proposed on all tribal land must gain the respective tribe’s consent to be approved, a move that local tribes, opposed to the proposed hydroelectric projects, had been calling for. The decisions pave the way for increased tribal sovereignty in energy-related projects seeking federal approval across the country.

“This is a federal commission acknowledging tribal sovereignty,” George Hardeen, a spokesman for the Navajo Nation president’s office, said. “If a company wants to do business on the Navajo Nation, it, of course, needs to talk to and get the approval of the Navajo Nation. And in the eyes of FERC, that has not yet happened.”

I notice the caveats “all Tribal land” so maybe not where projects are partially on Tribal land?  It seems to me like Tribes should be able to approve any projects on Tribal land.  Maybe some readers in the legal space can help clarify.   And what energy projects does FERC regulate exactly? Transmission?

If  energy policy were only linear and rational.. first we’d ask Tribes and locals and environmental organizations what kind of build out they want, and the impacts on critters, plants and water supplies, and then assess what energy sources and transmission would best avoid those areas and impacts.  Seems like proposing a seemingly endless series random projects (some pumped hydro storage here, some geothermal there) and getting shut down project by project is not going to resolve the climate emergency anytime soon.

Anyway, the story is interesting and not paywalled so I recommend reading the whole ting.  No paywalls seems to be the case for news funded by foundations because they want their version of the news to get out there.  I’m just noticing a pattern here, as my media bills go up and my access to media goes down.

 

Horses, Mules Still Vital to Forest Service Meeting its Mission and the Rocky Mountain Region Horse Whisperer

by
crosby davidson
Elaine Collins/Special to The Daily Sentine lCrosby Davidson with the Shoshone Specialty Pack String is shown on a pack trip into the Eagles Nest Wilderness in Colorado in 2022 with materials for a bridge.
Interesting article from the Grand Junction Sentinel

U.S. Forest Service employees who gathered for a training in Rifle earlier this month weren’t there to learn about how to make use of newfangled things such as drones or artificial intelligence to do their jobs.

Rather, they were learning more about a resource that was vital to the Forest Service getting work done even in its early days and remains important today. And there to lead the lesson was Crosby Davidson, appropriately attired in chaps, boots and a cowboy hat.

“We affectionately call Crosby the horse whisperer for the Rocky Mountain Region” of the Forest Service, said Scott Woodall, lead rangeland ecologist for the White River National Forest.

Davidson is the lead packer for what’s called the Shoshone Specialty Pack String, a team of horses, mules and packers based out of the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming. By virtue of its high level of experience and expertise, the team serves as a regional resource for the Forest Service when it comes to both higher-demand forest packing projects and training in the skills of horsemanship and packing.

In Rifle, Davidson was leading horsemanship instruction for employees from various parts of the White River National Forest with a range of experience, or lack thereof, in the subject.

He said that traveling around the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain region, he occasionally runs into people who are surprised and interested to learn that the Forest Service has always had a pretty robust horse program, especially in areas with large areas of wilderness or roadless areas where vehicle access can’t be used to get materials and people into them.

“People seem pretty excited sometimes when we pull into the trail head and explain it to them,” Davidson said.

Woodall, whose job includes managing what the White River National Forest calls its livestock program, said 55% of the forest’s 2.3 million is wilderness or roadless acreage.

“Our livestock is the main means of transportation into our high country,” he said.

He said the program currently consists of 15 horses and mules, with animals based out of Rifle, Meeker and Eagle County. The animals can be used for carrying in materials for things such as trail, bridge and fencing projects, and for ferrying out old materials, as well as other things such as trash left behind by forest visitors.

Woodall said the animals are valuable in helping agency ecologists, biologists, foresters and other scientists and specialists access the high country more easily than on foot, while also bringing along all the tools, equipment, food and other supplies they might need for perhaps a week-long trip.

“The first thing in land resource management is getting to where you need to go to see the land,” he said.

He said scientists need to do things such as dig into soils, examine plants and insects up close, and sometimes even employ senses of touch, smell and taste to do their jobs, and using something like a drone can’t replace being there in person.

“I don’t think anything will ever take the place of actually being on the ground,” he said.

But it’s also important to get there and back safely, which is a major reason for providing horsemanship training and certification for employees. During the three-day class at the Garfield County Fairgrounds, Davidson and a second instructor led students through fundamentals of saddling and bridling horses, and the basics of riding them, steering them, getting them to speed up and slow down, and so on.

“It’s a lifetime of learning,” Davidson said. “You can’t get it done in three days, but you can get the building blocks started.”

Davidson has spent a lifetime himself being around horses and learning from them. As a youth he packed with his parents into the Wind River Range in Wyoming for their outfitting business. He started packing as a seasonal employee for the Forest Service right after high school and got his first permanent job on the Shoshone forest as a trail crew foreman, doing a lot of packing to get materials on-site. He has had his current job for several years.

“I can’t get enough of horses and mules, so I’ll tolerate the trail work in order to be able to be around horses and mules. I don’t like swinging a pick quite as much as I like riding a horse but they’re both really good jobs and just being in the woods is really nice,” he said.

As he spoke, he occasionally stroked the head of one of his team’s horses named Slim, while Slim occasionally champed at a bit the horse was still getting used to.

“I really like Slim. Slim’s very curious. He’s very willing. He’s always willing to try to get the job done,” Davidson said. “He’s always searching for the right answer. He’s the kind you want; he’s one of the good ones for sure.”

He said other horses can be harder to communicate with, but all horses have their strengths and weaknesses.

“That’s the fun part, is when you get to something that’s challenging you, you’re really having a hard time communicating with your horse and getting your point across to them, it’s usually the horse that teaches you how to get through that,” Davidson said.

He said he loves participating in trainings because no matter how long he’s been doing them, there’s always something to learn from other people and the horses.

“My hope is that some folks will take stuff away from this but I know for a fact that I will,” he said. “I always do. I always learn something.”

He said that while he spends the winter and spring teaching, when the snow is melted the Shoshone Specialty Pack String keeps busy traveling around the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region doing projects. It fills in in areas where the Forest Service doesn’t have a local stock program, or for larger projects, which can involve things such as blasting or bringing in larger materials for things such as bridge construction.

As one example, the Shoshone outfits’ mules are more used to safely packing long timbers than often is the case for other animals.

“We can pack 8- to 10-foot timbers, which is kind of a scary thing for a horse or mule to do for the first time,” he said.

Woodall said the Shoshone pack string is scheduled to carry a big load out of the Flat Tops this summer; he said he thinks the load will involve old fencing. He said some local forest employees also will be there to learn from the experience.

Leeann Veldhuis, district ranger for the Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District, participated in the recent training and said her previous experience riding horses was limited to a couple of tourist-type rides while on family trips as she was growing up. She appreciated the fundamentals she learned in Rifle.

“I’ve learned a ton. A lot of it is understanding the horse and the horse’s mentality and how I as the person have to approach the horse and interact with the horse to get him or her to do what I’m looking for them to do,” she said. “They’re another living creature and it requires a communication style that we’re not used to because they’re an animal.”

Veldhuis views the ability to ride a horse as helpful in being able to get out with her range permit administrator to meet grazing permit holders in range allotments that just in her district cover about 450,000 acres, some of it in wilderness.

“That’s obviously a lot of ground to cover and learn about, and understand what’s happening out there on the ground,” she said.

She appreciated the opportunity to learn from experts from the Shoshone pack string.

“It’s been a really unique and I think meaningful experience for all the staff here who got to participate in one of the oldest Forest Service activities that there is,” Veldhuis said.

“Horsemanship, horse riding — it’s been here since the beginning.”

**********
Please feel free to add your own FS horse or mule stories below, or email them and I will post on Story Saturdays.

Firefighter Pay: Something We All Agree on? Op-ed by Steve Ellis

by

 

Mad River Hotshots set out in the morning to work on the Smith River Complex in Oregon in September.
Inciweb

Many of our public policy issues are too important to fall prey to “death by partisan tomfoolery.”  Firefighter pay is one of them.  Probably too “small” in the eyes of some to be anything more than a political football; maybe, just maybe, it’s the right size to be influenced by folks like us reaching our to our Congressional folks, Tweet Xing, or however people think they might influence the process.  Here’s an op-ed by Steve Ellis of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees in the Bend Bulletin. If you can’t access the link, try different devices/browsers, I’ve had success with some but not others.

Wildland firefighter pay is not a partisan game

Our federal wildland firefighters need our help, and time is of the essence. The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021 provided funding to increase base salaries for federal wildland firefighters up to $20,000 or 50% of their current wages in an effort to address historically and comparatively low pay and widespread staffing shortages. However, without action, that funding expired in September 2023. Although Congress extended the current funding levels through the three separate stopgap measures, they have yet to pass a permanent solution, and the next congressional deadline for a solution is March 1. The National Federation of Federal Employees estimates up to half of wildland firefighters might possibly leave the federal service if Congress does not permanently secure their pay and benefits.

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees is dedicated to sustaining the Forest Service mission by adapting to the challenges of today and tomorrow. We believe Congress and our country should work to ensure that these brave men and women who put their lives on the fireline to protect human life, our communities, watersheds, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and other forest and rangeland values, should not have their employment fraught with financial insecurity and instability. Their commitment and sacrifice should allow them to provide a living wage for themselves and their families.

Forest Service Chief Randy Moore recently met with our organization’s board of directors and told us that many federal firefighters cannot afford housing, and some are even living out of their cars. We understand that such a pay reduction could amount to up to $20,000 for some of these firefighters, forcing them to leave personal and family decisions in the hands of Congress. Alternatively, many might leave the service for more assured compensation and stability. Solidifying these benefits would help to successfully implement the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy and the recommendations from the Congressional Wildland Fire Commission. At the most basic human level, it’s simply the right thing to do.

This is one of the factors that can contribute to a shortage of federal wildland firefighters, and the timing couldn’t be more important. While we may not yet be in the thick of wildfire season, agencies are actively finishing the recruiting for the upcoming season. Timeliness is important for meeting the hiring demands for the needs for this summer. This is not a United States issue alone. Last year the federal wildland fire community responded across Canada to support our northern neighbors and personnel have been assisting in Chile. Our international agreement with Australia and New Zealand is ready for implementation.

It could be argued that the longer Congress waits, the more our elected officials are putting our communities at risk. This shouldn’t be another “partisan game” over which party will get their way. We are talking about real communities that could be left without adequate services due to insufficient staffing, or firefighters leaving the service. We are talking about real men and women with a duty to provide for their families. We are also talking about putting our firefighters in harm’s way by stretching them too thin. We are conceivably talking about life-and-death consequences for firefighters and anyone who lives within the possible reach of wildfires as a result of Congress’ inaction. For Oregonians, that’s most of us.

It’s time for Congress to fix this issue, permanently.

Steve Ellis is chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees and lives in Beavercreek, Oregon.

Wrestling with the Moose Fire Story Map: Window into Suppression Strategies and Tactics

by

If you read various news outlets, they are always saying (as are our insurance companies) that wildfires will get worse due to climate change.  Meanwhile the USG is spending beaucoup bucks on new technologies (e.g early detection, drones, etc.), prescribed fire, fuel treatment, PODs and so on.  The technologies are likely to trickle down to those of us away from federal lands. I think it would be more honest to say “the climate is changing, and we’re working hard on managing fire better, so we don’t know if the end result will ultimately be more, less or the same.

What I’ve noticed, though, from these kinds of stories and academic studies, is that the role of fire suppression folks is generally not considered.  It’s not like hurricanes or floods.. there are not hurricane stoppers or flood stoppers, yes there are various long-term strategies to reduce damage, but not people who know a lot about how it works in the thick of things (oh, and with questionable pay).

Thanks to a colleague who shared this excellent story map on the Moose Fire!  Especially for you TSW readers who aren’t familiar with suppression efforts, or those for whom it’s been awhile, I point you to the videos of the Fire Management Officer, the Fire Behavior Analyst, the Incident Commander and their roles and how they went about dealing with the fire; and the concerns and roles of those in the community .

 

 

 

Sara C.’s Answers on PM 2.5, and Happy Valentine’s Day!

by

It’s Valentine’s Day, and I would like to give a special Smokey Wire Valentine to Sara C., who answered my questions on the PM 2.5 Rule in a very clear and concise way.  In case you didn’t read it in the comments, here are her answers.  As hard as our regular contributors work, we can’t keep up with everything of interest, and so that’s why we all appreciate folks who step up with their knowledge.  Here’s what Sara had to say in this comment link.

Hi all – I’m an environmental attorney and work with a number of prescribed fire and cultural burning advocates on these issues. Here are the brief answers to Sharon’s questions:

(1) What new things do wildfire folks have to do (if anything)? The Clean Air Act puts the onus on state air pollution control agencies, not wildfire folks. With a stricter standard, more air basin will fall into “nonattainment” for PM2.5 (from both wildfire and other pollution) – these new designations will be made by February 2026. For those areas in nonattainment, the air agencies/states will have to come up with “state implementation plans” to demonstrate to EPA how they’ll come back into compliance. Those “SIPs” will be due in August 2027.

The wrinkle is that wildfire smoke can also be “excluded” from consideration using a process called the Exceptional Events Rule. It’s still the air agencies that are responsible for preparing Exceptional Events “demonstrations”, but they may look to wildfire folks for help with data, etc. Once “excluded,” then the wildfire smoke doesn’t count for regulatory purposes.

(2) What new things do prescribed fire folks have to do (if anything)? It depends whether your state falls out of attainment, and if so, how your state chooses to come back into attainment through the SIP. Some states may choose to make permitting for prescribed fire more difficult in response, or may require prescribed fire practitioners help with exceptional events demonstrations if they get permits. For now, prescribed fire practitioners should be paying attention to how their states are going to respond, and work to make sure that smoke from prescribed fire isn’t the source that’s targeted for curtailment.

(3) Does EPA think “hey since we have wildfires (this year? over time? future using computer models?) and prescribed fire, and then we have to ratchet all other activities further down (e.g. industry, cars, etc.)? Under the Clean Air Act, EPA leaves the targeting of specific sources to the states. Some states may want to use it as a reason to ratchet down other activities, some states may chose to ratchet down prescribed fire instead. There are some unique incentives though, given that wildland fire and prescribed fire can be excluded via an exceptional events demonstration, and traditional sources of pollution cannot.

(4) What does it mean in practice to deal with Exceptional Events? What is a demonstration? The Exceptional Events Rule is the part of the clean air act that allows states to exclude certain emissions. Generally speaking, the CAA regulates the “ambient” air quality — no matter the source, states can be on the hook exceedances of the standards. But the CAA recognizes that states sometimes have no control over a particular source, and therefore shouldn’t be penalized for it – the prototypical examples are dust storms and wildfire. In 2016, the EPA revised the regulations for exceptional events to make clear that prescribed fires might also qualify, but until the demonstration above, this path had never been used. The main reason is that exceptional events demonstrations — i.e., the name for the pathway to get EPA to agree to exclude the data — are technically complicated and resource intensive. The one referenced above took experienced EPA staffers 3 months. So instead of agreeing to let a prescribed fire happen and then preparing to file a difficult and uncertain exceptional events demonstration, air regulators may simply deny or condition prescribed fire permits so no exceedance is likely.

(Note, I edited the last sentence a bit, I’m hoping that’s what she meant and that she will comment if it’s not.)

Anyone else who would like to add information or links, please add below.

Commenter Shaun recently pointed out that many of the policy changes he’s seen, for the last little while (he mentioned 38 years), have tended to centralize decisions.  Of course, there has always been a partnership between the Feds and States with regard to the Clean Air Act.  What is also  interesting to me to watch is Agency Encroachment in the form of EPA seeming to get regulatory tentacles further into everything else (energy production, WOTUS, plant genetics, fire retardant) while at the same time saying they don’t have enough budget or employees.   It would indeed be a paradox if EPA is very worried about climate change, but also makes more difficult our efforts to protect ourselves from those same negative impacts. Anyway, I think watching new policies as to what more work is involved, and who makes the decisions, will be a worthwhile exercise.

The Importance of Open Disagreement to Science, and Why Mean Tweeters Like Mann are Missing in Forest Science

by

The Mann trial was supposed to be  part of Roundup #2, but as you can see below, I got a bit carried away.

I read an op-ed this week by Loolwa Khazzoom, who said:

We are all pieces of a highly complex puzzle. When we listen instead of project, discuss instead of argue, and have a goal of learning instead of winning – approaching dialogue with an attitude of curiosity and discovery – we can benefit from the unique life experience and thought process that we each bring to the table.

Which is my belief as well. Otherwise I wouldn’t spend so much time on The Smokey Wire and similar efforts. Also this week, I followed along on the highly entertaining podcast Climate Change on Trial presented by the Unreported Story Society. I think it’s safe to say that Michael Mann, the climate scientist and plaintiff in the defamation lawsuit against two bloggers, Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, would not agree with that statement on the utility of listening and “approaching dialogue with an attitude of curiosity and discovery.”

At first, I thought the trial was a bit ridiculous. As if what two random bloggers wrote could actually defame Mann any more than a cursory examination of his Twitter feed, and that that would effect his financial remuneration in terms of research grants. Were they kidding? Then it turned out that this defamation biz had been going on for 12 years (!), and no one knows who is paying Mann’s court fees. My view is that in a just world, the jury would have awarded the past 12 years of legal fees to Steyn and Simberg. Of course, as a random blogger myself, maybe I’m being too sensitive. But it was OK, I guess, because according to the Hill, these guys are “right-wing” bloggers and I’m not.

So, at first, I was glad that scientists in our forest fields generally don’t behave that way. And I wondered if a podcast on some of our fuels treatment court cases with key parts being reenacted would be as entertaining. But as we delved into the Mann Tweets and emails, I wondered “how could that level of meanness be tolerated?” and “why was it OK for him to do what most of us would never consider doing?,” and “whose job is it to keep our convos civil, if anyone?”

The story of how all this developed was fascinating, at least to me. For those of you who don’t know, Mann was famous for the hockey stick graph, splicing together various measures of past temperatures including our very own tree rings. When someone asked for the data, he was unwilling to part with it, at least at the beginning. He clearly wasn’t a fan of FOIA either, forwarding a message to others to delete emails. The release of the Climategate emails was not a good moment for him.  If you were to ask him, I’m sure that he saw these as efforts to impugn climate science, and (thus, naturally, to him) he became combative in its (his own) defense.  It became a “good guys vs. bad guys” thing, with him, naturally, on the self-defined “good guys” side.

At the same time, you or I could also say that science should stand up to independent scrutiny, and that if someone wants the original data, they should be able to access it. I don’t think that that would be a big problem in forest science world. So what happened here? Perhaps Mann felt that the stakes were so high, it makes usual scientific practices and conduct obsolete. Some of us might say that that correlates at .99 with his self-interest, so.. But on the other hand, billions of dollar have been spent on climate science and Mann is just one of millions of climate scientists around the world, so the hockey stick is not all that important at the end of the day. But that’s today, and perhaps not when the posts were posted.

I started to think “what went wrong here?” and “are there lessons for us in less-favored and financed disciplines to learn?” Many of us belong to scientific and professional societies, universities and agencies, with codes of conduct that incorporate ideas like collegiality and respectful communications.

Dr. Curry (she of Mann’s so-called “slept her way to the top” email to Gavin Schmidt at NASA) drafted a complaint which she never sent:

“This defamation is affecting my academic reputation and my ability to conduct business. I note that I am far from the only person being attacked and libeled by Dr. Mann.
Penn State Policy AD47 (General Standards of Professional Ethics) states that professors have obligations as members of the “community of scholars” and are required to “respect and defend” free inquiry by other members of the community and to show “due respect” for the opinions of others:

IV.As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. They respect and defend the free inquiry of their associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas they show due respect for the opinions of others.

“The policy also states that researchers are required to be “open-minded when evaluating the work of others” even if that may “contradict their own findings”:

III…. As open-minded researchers, when evaluating the work of others, they must recognize the responsibility to allow publication of theories or experiments that may contradict their own findings, as only by free inquiry and dissemination of all facts will the fruits of the labor of the whole community be allowed to mature.

Policy HR64 says (my bold) that faculty members have “special obligations” as persons of learning and as educators and are obliged to “exercise appropriate restraint” and “to show
respect for the opinions of others” Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and representatives of this University. When the faculty member speaks or writes as a citizen, the faculty member shall be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but the special position in the community held by the faculty member imposes special obligations. As a person of learning and an educator, the faculty member is expected to remember that the public may judge the profession and institution by his/her utterances. Hence, the faculty member agrees at all times to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others, and to make every effort to indicate that he/she is not an institutional spokesperson.”

Curry didn’t send it to Penn State because, as she says in her post .

“after all, the damage to my career was already done and I wasn’t clear where this would lead or whether it would have any effect.”

I wonder how Mann could have acted against these rules for so long with no one calling him on it.  I wonder if the folks he emailed (work emails) ever said, “hey, I’m not interested in gossip about our colleagues’ sex lives”,” or “maybe you should tone it down on  Twitter” or “I’m not sure we should try to evade FOIAs and delete emails.” From the court records, it sounded like a few people did.  If more had done so, could this all have turned out differently?

And how did he get awards from prestigious organizations for “science communication?” Was anyone reading his Tweets?

“I am truly humbled to receive the Stephen Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communications,” said Mann. “While none of us can fill the very large shoes Steve left behind, we can honor his legacy by doing our best to inform the public discourse over human-caused climate change in an objective, clear and effective manner.”

I don’t blame Mann for all of this.   People don’t always behave well when left to their own devices. This is a fact of human nature. That is why we have laws, law enforcement, codes of conduct and enforcement protocols.  It is the role of institutions to enforce their own rules.  And yet they apparently are not, at least in certain cases.

***********

Having listened to the podcast of the case, I was amused by this NPR story:

In a D.C. courtroom, a trial is wrapping up this week with big stakes for climate science. One of the world’s most prominent climate scientists is suing a right-wing author and a policy analyst for defamation.

The case comes at a time when attacks on scientists are proliferating, says Peter Hotez, professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology at Baylor College of Medicine. Even as misinformation about scientists and their work keeps growing, Hotez says scientists haven’t yet found a good way to respond.

“The reason we’re sort of fumbling at this is it’s unprecedented. And there is no roadmap,” he says.

**********

Imran Ahmed, chief executive at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, says any response has to include social media companies, as that’s where attacks on scientists happen every day. Research finds that social media platforms can encourage the spread of scientific and medical misinformation.

Hotez says he and Mann are working on an upcoming project, collaborating on what they see as overlap in attacks on climate science and biomedicine and how to counter it.

Was NPR even in the room? I guess you don’t have to actually observe things when you can just ask your friends what they think.

With all due respect to Hotez and Mann, having discussions and disagreeing is what science is about in the pursuit of truth; actually even outside of “science,” as in Khazzoom’s quote at the top of this post.  Characterizing people who disagree as “attackers” with “disinformation” who need to be throttled down is bad for discourse, bad for the public trust (yes, that public, the ones who vote for research budgets) and bad for science.  I’m curious as to why, of all the disciplines and subdisciplines in science and engineering, only these two fields (climate and Covid) seem to have this problem highlighted? Perhaps they have bought into a form of politics-science mutualism.  In the same way that a phone call changed the views of the virologists and led to the Proximal Origins paper on Covid origins, in the Mann case a discussion with the President of Penn State led the inquiry team to change its findings on censuring Mann.  Where disciplinary self-interest, institutional self-protection and larger world politics meet.. is probably not a good place for the rest of us, nor for any truth to come out.  And it’s definitely not “science.”

Aren’t we fortunate that we don’t have these issues in forest science? Do we manage it better, are the stakes so low no one cares for high quasi-political drama, or are we just lucky as to the character of our scientists? What do you think?

Friday News Roundup I. Forest Service Funding and Belt-Tightening

by

Rumors of OIG Report on FS Spending on the Infrastructure Act

There are rumors of an OIG report that talks partially about the Keystone Agreements that the FS uses to help with BIL and IRA efforts.

I am finding out more about these agreements to report on here.

My current understanding is that large sums of money could go through these agreements, but actually don’t until a specific project is funded.  So the FS doesn’t have to “claw back” money because most was never sent out. Which goes to..

FS Funding Shortfall Possibilities and Plans

The Hotshot Wakeup has a story on the FS not having enough money, or tightening their belts due to lower appropriated funds in 2024, 5.2% cost of living adjustment and inflation.

Here’s the Chief’s letter.

I also heard that there are 33K permanents now, at least in part, due to fire positions going from temporary to permanent seasonals 13/13 or 18/8, which costs more due to benefits.  The idea, of course, is that life for these folks will be better under better employment conditions and more people will want to work, and fewer people leave.  My understanding is that that (33K) is more than the FS has had in previous years, but I can’t recall the exact figures by year.

I’m hoping commenters can add more context and background.