Today is the last day for comments on what I used to call the Mature and Old Growth ANPR. First let’s give the Forest Service some kudos for the differences between it and the BLM proposed rule. Like the IMBA letter suggests, the BLM could have benefited from collecting ideas (through an ANPR) and then further honing the proposal in a proposed regulation as the next step. Also when time periods were extended the BLM’s were shorter and the BLM had the close on July 5, right after when most people had a holiday weekend. The BLM had a few public meetings and some online..the Forest Service approach was different, but then there is not a proposed rule yet, they’re collecting ideas in the ANPR.
Since I first posted on the ANPR, I’ve had much time to reread the Federal Register notice and look at some individual and group responses. It remains puzzling to me as there seem to be two basic threads. One is the mature and old growth question.. should some regulation be promulgated about not cutting trees in mature and old growth, as recommended by many ENGO’s? Check out the Climate Forests Campaign here.
There are many ENGO heavy hitters (in the Biden Admin) like Earthjustice, NRDC, and the Sierra Club among the group. Their argument seems to be.. this is the rationale folks are sending in based on the “take action” letter:
In addition, older forests and trees are far more adaptable to the impacts of climate change, especially compared to industrial tree plantations. Nationally, carbon losses from clearcuts and other logging are up to 5 times higher than emissions from fire and other natural forest disturbances combined. Logging older forests grossly undercuts these benefits.
We urge you to include in any future administrative rules an end to ecologically harmful logging of mature and old growth forests and trees on federal land. While there are certainly other threats to our older forests, including wildfire and drought, the threat of logging is fully under your control and can be quickly acted on.
The first few sentences appears to conflate federal and private lands (I can’t get their link to check it), and the alternative on national forests is not “industrial tree plantations.”
The second is that however tiny the proportion of disturbance due to timber harvest (regardless of purpose, including ecological restoration and fire risk reduction) that is what can be controlled so you should stop. Presumably even for fire risk reduction and ecological restoration.
The ANPR has some interesting tables for those who haven’t read it, so I thought I’d put them in this post.
There are difficulties though, with the argument of stopping any tree-cutting in mature and old growth forests. For one thing, the bipartisan Congress has asked the Forest Service to cut some mature trees for fuels reduction, in part to increase the possibility of protecting old growth trees and stands. Then there is the need for early successional habitat for diverse tree (species like some oaks and pines) and wildlife species, as biodiversity is thought to be a good thing, and is in the 2012 Planning Rule.
Given the desire and appropriations by a bipartisan majority in Congress for fuel treatments, I don’t see how any such no-cutting mature and old trees rule would end well (except for work for litigators). And for environmental lawyers here at TSW, no, I don’t think that making more work for you all is why these ENGOs are doing this. Sure, you can say that the Sierra Club has wanted to end commercial logging since 1986 -ish, so perhaps climate is just the latest justification for this same point of view. And the Biden Admin may seem like a good opportunity to run this up the flagpole. But I can’t see an endgame where no-cutting trumps fuel reduction treatments and openings for biodiversity at the end of the “separation of powers” day. And I know that folks in the ENGOs know more than I do about this, and for sure are smarter and more politically astute than I am. So what is this really about?
On the other hand, some Forest Service folks have told me that the “no-cutting rule” idea isn’t going anywhere and the ANPR is really about how the FS should respond to climate adaptation. But based on the FOIAs I’ve received, the FS isn’t necessarily calling the shots with regard to forest policy in this Admin (nor is USDA). So I would be inclined to include your thoughts on MOG in any comments you want to send in today. Next post: the rest of the questions in the ANPR.
Drilling rig at Fervo Energy’s Project Red in Nevada (source: Fervo Energy)
Fervo Energy says it has geothermal energy breakthrough. This was a story in Bloomberg News, but can be seen on the Financial Post website here.
Fervo has an interesting explanation of how their technology is different here. But I think the news story is about more general successful testing.
******************
How Fervo Expands the Geothermal Landscape
Fervo leverages horizontal drilling, distributed fiber optic sensing, and multi-zonal completion techniques to introduce fluid and increase permeability in the subsurface. By injecting water underground and creating pathways in the rock for that water to flow, Fervo no longer has to worry about finding perfect, naturally occurring hydrothermal resources.
Instead, Fervo can focus on analyzing the temperature profiles of different prospects. Geothermal electricity generation is typically economic at temperatures greater than or equal to 150C. With existing drilling capabilities, Fervo seeks to tap into these resources less than 4 km beneath the surface, which offer nearly 300,000 MW in capacity.
Looking for land with subsurface temperatures greater than 150C at less than 4 km is significantly easier than looking for land with the same temperature requirements and ample permeability. When temperature is the sole constraint, geothermal becomes a much more scalable resource.
Next-generation geothermal technology could deliver over 250,000 MW of 24/7 carbon-free power to the grid, more than 8 times the amount of estimated capacity associated with undiscovered hydrothermal resources and more than 25 times the amount of capacity provided by identified hydrothermal reservoirs. With strong transmission, this power could support communities across the country, far beyond the western U.S.
********************************
Here’s what the Western Governors did with their geothermal initiative. I bolded the parts of particular interest to us. Going back to our data theme this week, thought, perhaps “people’s views and concerns” should be in a database somewhere along with the technical data. But maybe those get incorporated in the “priority leasing area” development effort?
*******************************
As part of the bipartisan Heat Beneath Our Feet initiative, the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) has published a comprehensive report detailing the group’s recommendations and strategies to accelerate the deployment of geothermal technologies across the Western U.S. states. The full report can be viewed here.
The Heat Beneath Our Feet initiative was launched by the WGA under the leadership of Governor Jared Polis of Colorado in mid-2022. The goal was for the WGA to evaluate geothermal energy technology development in the Western States and assess the potential benefits it would offer. This was followed by a rigorous process of engaging with over 500 stakeholders through online surveys, tours, work sessions, and a webinar series.
The report also highlights several case studies of geothermal development in various U.S. states, as well as recaps of the many tours and workshops conducted as part of the Heat Beneath Our Feet Initiative.
After examining the various market, technology, and policy factors that affect the development of geothermal resources, the report proposed the following recommendations:
Improve resource assessment and data collection
Increase federal funding for resource assessments – “Congress should provide USGS and DOE with funding to increase the pace and scale of data collection, mapping and resource assessments and facilitate collaboration with state geological surveys. DOE should also leverage synergies with other programs, such as USGS’s Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (MRI) that are complementary efforts and in which states are already partners, to expedite efforts to assess geothermal resources. “
Coordinate with states to target resource areas with greatest potential – “States serve a critical function as primary sources and stewards of geospatial, scientific, and technical datasets that support the development of renewable energy resources. State geological surveys should have the opportunity to provide input and recommendations on where USGS and GTO prioritize resource assessment efforts in their states. “
Improve the federal repository of relevant geothermal development data and the ability to interact with it – “The federal geothermal data repository should seek to incorporate data relevant to those factors, such as mapping overlays of critical habitat for endangered species, hydrological data, and existing transmission capacity… This federal repository could build on NREL’s Geothermal Prospector and should be publicly available and easily accessible online.”
Leverage data from the oil and gas industry – “Both (oil and gas, and mining) industries rely heavily on subsurface expertise that could help reduce the exploration and drilling costs of the geothermal industry. These operators should be encouraged to share data from existing operations with geothermal developers. Further, public-private partnerships with DOE should be encouraged to reduce the cost of drilling for geothermal wells through project demonstration grants.”
Mitigate risk in drilling and exploration
Continue federal investment in reducing uncertainty in geothermal exploration – ” Congress should extend authorization and increase funding for the Hidden Systems Initiative… for the research and development of innovative subsurface technologies.”
Explore models to help developers secure financing for exploratory drilling – “DOE should explore the feasibility of cost share programs, such as guaranteed loans, insurance, and grants, and assess the effect these mechanisms would have on the geothermal industry.”
Extend existing tax incentives for the oil and gas industries to geothermal development – “Despite the similarity of exploration activities in the geothermal and oil and gas industry, some regulatory and tax incentives that currently apply to exploratory wells drilled for oil and gas do not apply to geothermal exploration. Congress should extend this tax treatment to the geothermal industry.”
Optimize permitting and improve regulatory certainty
Provide tools and resources to help proponents navigate the geothermal development process. – “DOE should coordinate with states to maintain publicly available resources detailing the state and federal requirements that apply to geothermal development in each state.”
Increase agency capacity for leasing and permitting. – “The Department of the Interior (DOI), USFS, and Congress should ensure that the relevant agencies are adequately staffed to review permits in a timely fashion. DOI and USFS should also ensure agency staff have access to technical experts to build staff expertise in geothermal development.”
Develop streamlined processes for geothermal leasing on par with other energy categories. – “BLM should establish priority leasing areas for geothermal energy, as it has done for wind and solar energy in Instruction Memorandum No. 2022-027.”
Expand oil and gas exploration regulatory efficiencies to geothermal development. – “Congress should expand Section 390 (of The Energy Policy Act of 2005) to include geothermal exploration, which would allow agencies to use the existing categorical exclusion to facilitate increased geothermal exploration and the discovery of new resources without compromising environmental protections.”
Fund research on the water usage of EGS. – “DOE should fund water efficiency research as part of the Enhanced Geothermal Shot and related EGS efforts.”
Collaborate with tribes and communities, including consultation prior to and during project development. – “Where relevant, it is important to consult tribes at the beginning of a potential geothermal project and ensure that the resource is developed in a way that does not damage sensitive historical and cultural resources.”
Expand funding opportunities
Expand funding for demonstration projects. – “Congress should expand funding for programs that support geothermal demonstration projects such as those under the DOE Loan Program Office’s Title 17 Clean Energy Financing program… Congress should continue to fund the FORGE project and establish additional EGS demonstration projects in the West.”
Encourage development in energy transition communities. – “DOE should target funding towards these (energy) communities for the conversion of existing oil and gas wells to geothermal energy as part of a just transition.”
Increase funding levels for the Geothermal Technologies Office. – “Congress should appropriate sufficient funds to the GTO to establish a strong research and development capability and to execute the recommendations contained in this report… Appropriations in recent years have been significantly below the authorized level.”
Implement incentives for consumer adoption:
Expedite the deployment of tax incentives, rebates, and end-user applications. – “The Inflation Reduction Act both increased and expanded the tax credits and rebate program for the installation of geothermal heating systems. The Internal Revenue Service should move quickly to implement these programs so that consumers can begin taking advantage of them as soon as possible and define domestic content requirements in as expansive a manner as permissible under federal law.”
Develop workforce and contractor ecosystem
Create opportunities for workers and communities affected by the energy transition – “Congress should establish a mechanism within DOE that leverages existing expertise and relationships in the national labs to conduct education and workforce development. Congress and DOE, in conjunction with other federal agencies, should also consider opportunities to target these communities with resources and training, and collaborate with relevant trade unions to expedite its deployment in communities.”
Support workforce development in the geothermal industry. – “Policymakers should support the development of industrywide training opportunities and collaborate when applicable with trade unions that perform this work. The industry should work closely with states to develop and scale up training pathways to meet this workforce demand.”
Increase awareness and education to develop geothermal markets
Develop guidance for policymakers, regulators, and utilities to conduct cost-benefit analyses of geothermal energy – ” Greater awareness of the firm, clean nature of geothermal energy could build more confidence in the resource and lead to utilities encouraging geothermal solicitations in their bids. DOE should develop guidance on how to incorporate the full value of geothermal projects into resource planning.”
In the past, TSW had a category called “the People’s Database” that talked about how the way the FS produces information could be more helpful to the kinds of questions the public is asking. If you’re interested, you can click on the category way down among the widgets on the right hand side. It’s probably easiest to do this on a computer rather than a phone.
A colleague of mine when we worked in the now-defunct RPA Program, Terry Tipple, used to give me on-the-job training in his field, public administration. He always said “policy is like a merry-go-round, you keep going around and at some point stars will align such that you can grab the brass ring.” It’s in the spirit of potential brass-ring-grabbing that I repost the below piece from 2013.
Anyone who is writing a comment letter for the Forest Service ANPR (that I used to call the MOG ANPR, but I’ve been told more recently that it is really about improving procedures and practices) can add ideas like this.. .
*********************
Volunteering for SAF gives me many opportunities for insight and opportunities to compare private and public forests, and regions of the country.
Recently, SAF signed on to an effort to get funding for FIA- forest inventory and analysis- which collects information about forests across the US. A couple of times I served on two “Blue Ribbon Panel” of users of the information who (excerpted from this):
The American Forest and Paper Association has organized two Blue Ribbon Panels (1991 and 1997) to review the national FIA program and provide recommendations to the Forest Service on needed changes to the content and capabilities of the program. The most recent panel recommended that the Forest Service should 1) elevate the priority of FIA in the Forest Service program, 2) convert the FIA program from a periodic inventory to an annual inventory, 3) fulfill the congressional mandate of reporting on all lands regardless of ownership, 4) concentrate on the core ecological and timber data, and 5) develop a strategic plan to implement the full FIA program.
FIA also has regular meetings with user groups to help guide their activities and generate support.
It seems to me that we are missing a group (a Peoples’ Coalition) that can reach across different interest groups and ask for information that we might agree that we all need about National Forests. We don’t have an AF&PA to speak for us and get things started, so perhaps we have to organize ourselves.
We could ask the Chief to convene a panel of citizens representing different groups to ask 1) what information is important to be collected in a standard format across forests and regions? and 2) how best do we make that accessible to the public? For example, PALS has searches that internal folks can do but not external.. should it remain that way?
Stakeholders outside of the FS could then lobby strongly for this information the same way that groups (very successfully) lobby for FIA.
Some topics we’ve mentioned here are budgets and outputs, costs of environmental document developments, number of acres treated, etc., as in the “vegetation management” thread here and here. it seems to me that we could take advantage of having an Administration which promotes transparency to set such a framework of an advisory committee.
At first, I was thinking volunteers could find and enter the data, but then I thought “if the public wants this information, why doesn’t the agency just provide it?”. I’m sure that the agency could save some bucks by stopping collecting information on a variety of things that someone used to be interested in, and focus on things the public is currently interested in. The public could actually help the Forest Service prioritize information across silos, something that is problematic internally.
But we can’t ask poor Region 1 to do more work on their own.. when these are national forests, and data should be captured and made available consistently across regions. Besides, they appear to already be doing more work than some other regions, based on the GAO reports and Derek’s observations.
*************
Collecting information based on what the public perceives as a need (the vacuum approach) and involving the public in how the information is developed has many advantages in terms of building trust in the information. Sometimes it seems as if some science folks and NGOs use the blower approach for information- they put out what they already have or what they think is useful which may or may not be. And perhaps don’t ground truth the data with the public.. which doesn’t increase trust. If anything needs more trust, it would be prescribed burning and WFU, IMHO.
This is the beginning of a new approach- DIY analysis and data interpretation. I will present my data and findings, and you get to reanalyze them and come up with your own conclusions.
Here’s what data I asked for from the FS- I asked for WFU (Wildland Fire Use) acres by year. The nice folks at the National Press Office sent me this handy table, which includes prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and other. Here’s a sample:
Here’s what “other” is..”Treatment Category that describes work involving the use of chemicals, grazing, or biological methods to achieve Fire Management Plans objectives.”
So I made an Xcel spreadsheet of the WFU acres, and added the NIFC total acres for that year.
Then I subtracted the WFU from the NIFC total for each year, to get what I call “unwanted wildfire acres.” Here’s the Xcel spreadsheet. It’s altogether possible I did something wrong, so perhaps you all can check it.
Here’s what I plotted.
If the data are accurate and my spreadsheet used the correct data, then the fitted line for unwanted fire acres (UWF) is almost straight from 2003 to 2022. Which means that there has been little or no increase in unwanted acres burned through time. Which is quite against what you read in the press, so check my figures!
If my data is true, here is my narrative. Despite everything we’ve read about increased fire weather and so on, our fire suppression folks have done an amazing job at keeping the unwanted acres burned basically the same for the last 20 years. They deserve a great big thank you from all of us.. oh and the correct policy solution is to… Pass The Tim Hart Act!!!!
I’m sure there are other interesting things that could be found in both the FS accomplishment table and the WFU/UWF (I think UWF should be pronounced “oof”.. just kidding). And what happened in 2016 where the WFU was almost as large as the UWF acres?
This is posted with the permission of the author, Sarah Hyden. Here is a link to the original. I thought she raised some interesting questions worthy of discussion.
Black Fire, May 16, 2022 — Photo: US Forest Service
Forest Service wildfire management policy run amok
From suppressing fires, to confining fires, to expanding fires, to igniting fires
One of the most important roles of the US Forest Service is to contain wildfires. Firefighters can often help to prevent wildfires from becoming disastrous to the human environment — they can help to protect communities, along with homeowners’ own efforts to fireproof their properties. However, Forest Service wildfire management policy can also cause the destruction of communities, and result in excessive and overly-frequent burning of some of our most valuable natural resources such as old growth, sensitive species and their habitats, and watersheds.
Conservation scientists strongly support “managed wildfire for resource benefit,” which means allowing naturally ignited wildfires to burn when safe to do so. When this is done, fire lines are built to protect communities and other values that could be impacted by the wildfire. This helps to return the natural role of fire in our forests, because fires of all intensities have a role in forest ecology and can promote biodiversity. However, there is also a limit on how much fire is beneficial to forests – too much fire can occur too fast when fires are intentionally ignited.
An increasing trend in Forest Service wildfire management tactics has been to combine intentional burning (prescribed burning) with emergency fire suppression. During at least three fires in New Mexico in just a little over a year, the Forest Service has utilized aerial and ground firing operations to expand wildfires, and to implement intentional burns on landscapes that would not have burned otherwise. These are the Black Fire in the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses, the Pass Fire in the Gila National Forest and Gila Wilderness, and the Comanche Fire in the Carson National Forest.
During the more than 325,000 acre Black Fire which ignited on May 13, 2022, it appears from ArcGIS aerial fire hot spot maps, that a very large area of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness was ignited by the USFS up to 10 miles to the south of the main fire with aerial firing operations – meaning dropping incendiary devices from helicopters or drones. See map below. This was clearly not any kind of large-scale back burn intended to contain the main fire, due to its distance from the main fire and its position relative to the wind direction.
This intentionally-ignited fire was herded to the north over several days until it joined the main fire. Then, on the Forest Service’s official fire perimeter map, both fires were suddenly joined together as one fire. There was no distinction made between the original fire which was not caused by USFS actions, and the sections of the fire to the south, amounting to a separate fire, that were directly ignited by the Forest Service. The agency had also expanded the main fire in other directions.
The intentional fire was only stopped by monsoon rains and by the intervention of a Sierra County Commissioner. Shouldn’t there have been a public analysis process before burning most of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness?
The ignitions by the Forest Service, along with the main fire, created a boxing-in formation — fire burning in almost every direction, so that which was in the midst of the formation was surrounded by fire. During wildfires, and also during traditional prescribed burns, wildlife has the opportunity to escape because the fire is generally approaching from just one direction. In a boxing-in fire formation, wildlife can become trapped and either injured or incinerated. There are no opportunities before such on-the-spot firing operations to seriously consider habitats of sensitive and endangered species, or to protect old growth forest and other values.
During the Pass Fire, which was ignited by a lightning strike on May 18, 2023, a substantial section of pinon and juniper in the Beaver Points area was intentionally burned through aerial firing operations, and many other areas were burned in ground firing operations. The ground firing operations were described by the Forest Service as burn out operations, in order to contain the fire and to protect structures. However, those burn out operations seemed very excessive, and some observers considered them to also be intentional burning.
This fire was managed as a “confine and contain” operation – an operation intended to allow a wildfire to burn within a determined fire perimeter for the purpose of reducing the intensity of future fires and to ecologically benefit the landscape. At the beginning of the fire, the Forest Service published on the Gila National Forest Facebook page a map of an approximately 75,000 acre planned fire perimeter. The current fire perimeter almost exactly matches the originally published planned perimeter. See overlay of both maps here.
The Comanche Fire, which began on June 8, 2023, was essentially a prescribed burn, except that the USFS utilized a 20 acre lightning strike ignition as the “match” that lit the fire. They stated in a fire update on June 21 that they have completed, not contained, 1% of the operation at 99 acres, making it clear that they were burning intentionally. The designated “focus area”, which appears to be a planned containment perimeter, was about 10,000 acres, broken into burn units. The intent was to expand a small lightning strike fire to at least 100 times its original size, utilizing both aerial and ground firing operations. The current size of this fire is 1,974 acres.
Such operations are now a substantial part of the work of firefighters across the West. Firefighters are essentially being used as intentional burn crews to implement fuels treatments, carried out with emergency fire suppression funding and no National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Some Forest Service personnel believe that we conservationists, by “holding their feet to the fire” to analyze intentional burn operations according to NEPA, are slowing down implementation of burn treatments. So, by expanding wildfires, or even starting new ones in the vicinity of wildfires, the Forest Service is able to greatly expand the implementation of burn treatments, and thereby meet agency quotas.
Any statistics or research about the extent of wildfire in recent years, in relation to climate change or presumed increases in wildfire activity, may be distorted by a substantial portion of total reported wildfire acreage being actually ignited by the Forest Service. This occurs while managing wildfires under full suppression, and in confine and control operations.
The Forest Service has put the concept of managed wildfire for resource benefit on steroids, often using wildfires as opportunities to ignite yet more fire, and to broadly burn landscapes. This is not managing wildfire, but essentially creating fires. They are now using our firefighters as agents to carry out this dangerous and possibly illegal policy that sometimes causes severe unintended consequences to forests and communities. That some burns are ultimately ecologically beneficial does not make it acceptable to carry out fuels treatments without a NEPA process.
Forest Service Chief Randy Moore’s “Wildfire letter of intent 2023” provided direction to agency staff regarding wildfire suppression, stating “We will also continue to use every tool available to reduce current and future wildfire impacts and create and maintain landscape resilience, including using natural ignitions at the right time and place in collaboration with tribes, communities, and partners.” While there is not necessarily a legal basis at this point even for this direction, Forest Service firing operations that expand wildfires cannot be considered to be using natural ignitions. Drones or helicopters dropping incendiary devices are clearly not natural ignitions. And firing operations miles from a wildfire cannot reasonably be considered back burns that are necessary to contain a wildfire.
We have no national wildfire policy that either allows, or places any limits on such operations, and emergency fire suppression funding is not allocated for implementing fuels treatments. The Forest Service has given themselves virtually a carte blanche to conduct intentional burns over a wide area nearby wildfires — all without NEPA analysis or any public involvement in the planning process.
A genuinely cohesive national wildfire policy is essential, analyzed through a comprehensive and open NEPA process. It is necessary to make sure fires are managed safely, and that values like old growth trees, wildlife and their habitat, water quality, and soils are protected. Public health in relation to the smoke generated during intentional burns must also be considered.
The purpose of NEPA is so agencies will “look before they leap,” and therefore avoid causing environmental disasters. We have had more than enough disasters occur, culminating with last year’s Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire. If we allow the Forest Service to largely jettison NEPA and to freely implement fuels treatments under the guise of emergency fire suppression, we are giving up our primary means of protecting our forests and our communities, and it will affect other important conservation priorities. NEPA law acknowledges and supports our right to have a say on what occurs in our forests, and requires comprehensive analysis of the impacts of proposed actions.
The Forest Advocate is investigating USFS firing operations and will report more later. In the Forest Service Southwestern Region, a substantive FOIA request can take years to be fulfilled, so some records are difficult to obtain. The Sierra County Commission made an information request to the Forest Service to provide records of aerial ignitions during the Black Fire, but were told by the Southwestern Region that they have to put in a FOIA request through the standard process.
We need our elected representatives to urge the Forest Service to disclose the extent of all ignitions intended to expand wildfires or ignite new fires, especially during the Black Fire – and to move forward with a revised, comprehensive and clear national wildfire policy, accomplished in a transparent way, in accordance with environmental law.
ArcGis #firemappers hot spot map, south of main Black Fire (main fire in pink) May 28,2022
I was alerted to this comment letter by this Colorado Public Radio article and the headline : “What do ranchers, oil producers and bike groups have in common? They all want a say in new federal land management rules.” Bike groups was a new one, so I decided to take a closer look.
Note: if you work for an NGO who submitted comments, please post them on your website. This makes it easier for us to hear your thoughts!
Here’s a link to the IMBA letter. I thought they did a great job on the letter so I recommend reading the whole letter. I’ve pulled out a few sections that I think are both important, and agreed upon by many groups in the other letters I’ve read, from traditional user groups, renewables folks, the PLF and others.
IMBA Says Process is Flawed
The Proposed Rule is far too vague and undefined in its current form. If the BLM is asking general questions such as how to name new programs, what program duration and terms
should be, what areas should be eligible, what actions should be allowed, and many more questions; this indicates the BLM has not fully developed the proposed rule. What the BLM
ultimately incorporates in the final rule, after considering public comments, will be completely unknown to the public. This is an inappropriate process. This reiterates the need for the BLM to take these public comments into consideration and develop a final draft proposed rule or supplemental draft for comment. While we understand that timing is important and delay is not ideal, the BLM has stated that this is a once-in-a-generation conservation rulemaking opportunity. Therefore the BLM should ensure it gets this right. Oppositional lawsuits and legislative blocking will delay it to a greater extent and if the public does not support the outcome, that will erode public trust.
The proposed rule should have clarified the full range of actions being presented under the proposed rule so that the public can comment on them rather than answer the questions the
BLM has posed. Having the next iteration of the rule be a final rule is an improper way to handle this comment period. The public will not have the opportunity to view and provide feedback on what others may have presented and how the BLM incorporated it, which could lead to unnecessary lawsuits and a poorly considered Rule. The clarification of a supplemental Draft Rule would ensure transparency and predictability for the public and help avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the framework. Recommendation:
1. The BLM should provide the public with the next iteration of a proposed rule–a supplemental draft or final draft–which incorporates the public comment from this period.
2. We recommend the BLM err on the side of extra public involvement.
I agree with this observation and recommendation. Not only that, I think most of the Groups With Concerns, that is 1. Grazers 2. PEER 3 PLF 4 Renewables Folks and 5. Oil and gas and miners would probably agree.
IMBA Doesn’t See the Case Being Made
Here they sound surprisingly like me, except quite a bit more articulate.
Recommendation:
1. According to the Federal Register Rulemaking process, the BLM must demonstrate the need for the Rulemaking and that the Rule will garner the intended outcomes or the Rule is invalid. The Proposed Rule needs to be more clear why this rulemaking is the necessary solution and more importantly why current regulations are not sufficient in achieving this despite the “ample authority and direction”.
2. What barriers stand in the way of using the existing tools? How will the new framework proposed in the Rule resolve barrier, considering current staff and budget shortfalls.
3. Please provide greater detail on why existing tools are failing the BLM.
IMBA Has Concerns About Defining Non-Use to Be Use
We assume this to mean that the use, in this context, is intended to be a “lack of use.” We find it hard to support the inclusion of protection being considered a use but employed as a lack of use.”
**************
Our recommendation:
1. Instead, the Final Rule should seek to ensure that conservation is an actionable management practice to weave throughout all management decisions via mitigation and restorative activities, and the outcome of these actions is land and important resource protection. Conservation as a use in the context of the rule should be about restoration and improvement activities that can often coexist alongside other uses as intended by FLPMA and the multiple use mandate. Effective protection is inherently less capable of coexisting with other uses. Protection relies upon lack of use.
2. Mountain biking is an appropriate use of public lands. It does not need to be allowed everywhere to achieve that, but under FLPMA’s multiple use mandate, mountain biking use can be compatible with resource conservation and intact landscapes.
IMBA Has Concerns About Leases Leading to Privatization
Is the term “conservation lease” the best term for this tool?
IMBA believes the Lease program should be renamed the “Restoration Lease” program and focus its efforts on restorative actions. Leases should not be used to prevent action or prevent use (see comments above). Leases should only be issued to entities for projects that result in direct improved conditions. Leases should not be issued to entities who plan only to protect existing conditions by preventing action/use. That is a slippery slope to privatization.
Many thanks to folks who have sent in comment letters and news stories! There seems to be a full-court press by the Powers That Be on this one. I will stay with this one and provide updates.
*************************
Rumors
Reports are that BLM Director Stone-Manning is concerned that (some) current employees are less than supportive of the Proposed Reg. I don’t know if they had employee feedback sessions on the draft.. also rumor has it that some employees heard about it from other Interior agencies first. The latter is a rumor, I’m only mentioning this here because it’s hard to get documentation of non-support from current employees,and the lack of documentation means the “real” press can’t cover it. I think a current employee would have to be pretty careful with whom they share their opinions. Media folks can give off vibes that they are on the same team as the Biden Admin, which might make it more difficult for employees to open up. Anyway, FWIW. Anyone with better info please contact me.
*************************************
FS Response to My Questions
I asked the Forest Service the below questions and the Press Office was kind enough to send a timely reply. It was interesting that despite no formal OIRA review, the Forest Service had reviewed the Proposed BLM Reg. Apparently while I found inconsistencies, that I outlined in this post, either the FS didn’t or aren’t concerned, or were told not to be concerned..which is good to know. I sent a similar email question to DOE and have not heard back. FS definitely wins this one, thanks Press Office! My questions are in bold.
Did USDA review the Proposed Rule, especially the definition of “conservation” that is different from USDA? (I realize the Proposed Rule did not have OIRA review, but they might have asked you as a courtesy). If so, may I have a copy or the review? Otherwise I can FOIA it.
In the Proposed Rule, the BLM claims that it cannot respond to its challenges without a mapping exercise around “intactness” and without conservation leases. And yet the Forest Service plans to respond to its similar challenges without these tools. Could the USDA or the Forest Service provide a statement on why the Department or the FS doesn’t feel that those tools are necessary for its work?
Here’s the FS response:
The Forest Service was provided the opportunity to review the proposed rule and we are continuing to review and evaluate its impacts to federal lands. Regarding your second question, through implementation of the 2012 planning rule and our recently announced advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, we will continue to address new and existing challenges. Thanks for your inquiry, and as with any federal document, anyone can submit a freedom of information act request to ensure that proper public document release protocols are followed.
*******************
An interesting article on Colorado Public Radio..definitely takes the political angle. but has interesting info.
Here’s a quote: “The concepts and the direction in this proposed rule arise out of years of BLM experience in implementing FLPMA and working with public land users on the ground,” said Culver. I’m not sure that’s true, although a BLM career person in Colorado I know from my past FS work assured me that his own ideas were in it and he had a hand in writing it. Here’s another section of interest..
Many lawmakers dinged BLM headquarters for not holding hearings in rural areas of the West.
Colorado State BLM Director Doug Vilsack, and other state directors, did travel around talking with stakeholders about the draft.
His message was simple: this is only a starting point. And their suggestions would be important to change it for the better.
“Please get beyond your first reaction to this,” he said. “And look at the words in the rule. And tell how they can be changed. Cause I don’t think there is much debate about the need for actual guidance in how we do conservation in BLM.”
Mr. Vilsack apparently has only worked for the BLM since last July (2022), previously having worked for the State of Colorado. So he must be on a pretty steep learning curve about what there is a debate about. I think there is, in fact, a debate, a rather noisy one in fact. BLM folks said the same thing at our Denver meeting, that they had spoken to stakeholders about the draft. The problem with this is that it isn’t documented- so if you are a stakeholder and weren’t spoken to.. as people at the meeting I spoke with had not been, you would get the feeling that some stakeholders count, and you aren’t one of them. It doesn’t engender trust.
This is a map of total carbon southeast of Roxborough State Park. Yellow is lots, black is not much (hover over each indicator to see what the colors mean).
Steve posted about this Pew piece yesterday, so I thought I’d take a closer look. He quoted:
The USFS can better incorporate climate change-ready practices in four ways.
1) Use the best available science.
2) Identify specific climate change-ready management tools.
3) Monitor and adapt to changing conditions.
4) Engaging communities and Tribes.
I think the FS is already doing all those things.. so wondered if Pew had any different views. Let’s look at #1. Use the “best available science.”
New management approaches adopted by the Forest Service should encourage the continual incorporation of sound scientific and climate-informed information, as well as collaboration among the agency, Tribes, governments, and stakeholders in the design and development of new research projects to address identified knowledge gaps.
To support this management approach, The Pew Charitable Trusts and Conservation Science Partners (CSP) have released new research that can be used to help inform management decisions with climate change effects in mind, an approach known as climate-ready management. This publicly available data can be viewed with a user-friendly, interactive web map. Designed with input from USFS, the research identifies:
Areas of relatively high ecological value (HEVAs), such as places with high biodiversity, resilience to climate change, and significant carbon storage. Such prime locations would contribute most to sustaining forest health if managed with conservation as a priority.
Areas where proactive forest management projects would mitigate the risk of large, severe wildfires, which would help to protect communities, ecologically valuable areas, and the provision of ecosystem services.
Together, this data can improve return on investment by identifying places where the right management or the right activities will provide the greatest set of benefits across multiple considerations.
It seems to me that these data would have been improved by “collaboration among the agency, Tribes, governments, and stakeholders in the design and development of new research projects to address identified knowledge gaps.” Perhaps the HEVA mapping effort is putting the cart before the horse? In fact, it seems like the “right management” and the “right activities” to provide the “greatest set of benefits” is exactly what the forest planning effort is designed to do.. via throwing different approaches, data, observation, and kinds of knowledge around and discussing it. And maybe jointly, as Pew suggests, investigating new lines of research. Perhaps Pew could fund some co-designed, co-produced research in support of each forest’s collaborative groups- so take those less privileged forests (no CFLRP) and provide that capability to them? Similar to the Blue Mountain Forest Partners.. and no need to schedule a plan revision. Pew could help forests develop their own research and monitoring with stakeholders.
**********************
How Useful is This Mapping Exercise? Open Ground-truthing Exercise
I encourage everyone to play with the mapping tool and the indicators for their own area. Here’s the link. Please comment on what you found for your own area. Check out their Protected Areas and IRA “context” layers, if I read them correctly in my area, they look a little odd.
Anyway, you can check out this spring report from Pew on how protecting high value forest in Colorado can secure over $1.2 billion annually in ecosystem services. It sounds like each NF has had such a report developed. Maybe recent revision forests can weigh in on whether there were any new insights derived from this way of looking at the forests.
Updating these plans will also benefit local communities. NFS lands received a record 168 million visits in 2020, an increase of 18 million from the previous year. These visitors contribute approximately $12.5 billion to the U.S. economy each year and support about 154,000 full- and part-time jobs. But this growth in visits also carries challenges, particularly for the wildlife that live in these places. Revising forest plans can help balance where and when tourism and recreation activities are occurring and ensure that infrastructure, such as functional trailhead facilities, supports human visitors and healthy wildlife habitat.
********************
The rest of the recommendations sound like things the FS is already doing..
2) Identify specific climate change-ready management tools.
Using the best available science, the Forest Service should identify specific strategies to help ecosystems and species resist or adapt to the impacts of climate change and related stressors. Such strategies include:
Directing managers to prioritize HEVAs—after considering other important social and economic considerations—for strong conservation-oriented management. (not to speak of Tribes, resource professionals, and community involvement)
Promoting connectivity by retaining or restoring migration corridors for species such as mule deer. (the FS works with state wildlife agencies on that)
Replacing or removing culverts to allow aquatic species to move throughout streams.(hydrologists and fish bios do this regularly)
Restoring forests to their historic mix of young, mature, and old forest types where today’s conditions differ. (NRV, but with litigation from some ENGOs when it involves tree-cutting)
3) Monitor and adapt to changing conditions.
To understand the impact of management choices and trends of ecological conditions, the agency should develop more robust monitoring policies that regularly measure key indicators, such as annual rainfall and population of key species. Monitoring is critical and when science indicates a needed change, the USFS must pivot to incorporate a new management direction in a timely manner. Updated forest plans can serve as the starting point for this adaptive management approach.
(Like I said above, Pew could fund this by helping stakeholders ( a la Blue Mountain Forest Partners) develop research and monitoring; the adaptation by the FS can occur organically with that jointly developed information.)
4) Engaging communities and Tribes.
During the development of management plans, project design, and monitoring programs, the USFS must reflect the needs and desires of communities and Tribes that have a connection to national forests. Such meaningful engagement at every step of these processes will increase the quality and durability of the results.
(I think the FS already does this.. but communities and Tribes can disagree among themselves and with each other. Pew could model this by with involving communities and Tribes in developing ideas and measures for areas they want specially protected perhaps for HEVA 2.0.)
This StoryMap is pretty cool. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/381fcd4a36584aa28f9d836247d9a939
Background on this topic.The below post may be highly controversial. I’m posting it because it’s a voice I haven’t heard in some of the media, which equates more burned acres simply to climate change and hence more future wildfire acres, in a fairly apocalyptic framing. There are two problems with this in my view 1. it’s complex, so simplifying to one cause is actually not true and 2. it ignores all the levers we have to deal with wildfires before our energy is decarbonized, even ones we’re spending megabucks with defense contractors on like new technologies.
This kind of reporting also ignores the people who actually work with wildfire and their views, which I’m sure are diverse, like any other group. I see this as part of an ongoing trend to amplify the voices of coastal media and academics (people who work with words) and downplay the voices of people who work directly with things. The downside of this amplification and deamplification, as I see it, is that by not hearing those voices, we (the people) think we can’t do the things we can do (to improve wildfire suppression, like the Tim Hart Act); and can do the things we can’t do (e.g., finishing forest plans in three years; putting it in a reg did not make it so). And weirdly (feature or bug?) some disagreements, rather than discussed and understood, are simply dismissed by ad Partiem (I made that up and TSW Latin scholars can help) arguments (e.g. “Republicans are against WFU”).
So Murry can be right, wrong, or anywhere in between. I don’t know, this isn’t my area. But I think his voice needs to be heard and I’m not sure I’ve heard it elsewhere.
Guest post by Murry Taylor
I put this up on the Smokejumpers Facebook page yesterday. It’s in response to an article in a Seattle newspapter about the North Cascade Smokejumper Base in Winthrop, Washington. It’s gotten some attention with various groups pushing for more effective intial attack on wildfires in the west. Here’s what I wrote:
Murry Taylor here. I had 33 seasons fighting fire, 26 as a smokejumper. And now I’ve had 22 seasons on a Cal Fire lookout, so I’ve seen a lot of what I’m talking about. I’m also the author of Jumping Fire: A Smokejumpers Memoir of Fighting Wildfire. While I fully agree that poor forest management (as in accumulated fuels) has led to many of these big fires in the west, I want to point out something else here. One of the big reasons so much public land in the west has burned is the under-utilization of smokejumpers the past couple decades.
I agree that this article is a pretty comprehensive look at current smokejumping, the work, the demands, the deep satisfaction. Glad I got to read it, but I wish it had included the fact that since 2020, the jumpers only averaged 4.5 fire jumps a season. That’s a terrible under-utilization of such a critical resource. In the past we easily jumped twice that many, and some years four times as many. I’ve seen it many times while on the lookout, Duzel Rock. Fires have not been staffed for a day or two and then gone big and cost tens if not hundreds of millions while the jumpers sat unused. There seems to be a lack of understanding among fire managers in the Forest Service about the capability of these jumpers. Dispatchers have said they didn’t put jumpers on a fire because the “trees were too tall,” or the “winds were too strong.” Clearly they didn’t understand that the jumpers carry 150 let-down ropes, and have a spotter in the plane throwing streamers, and know EXACTLY what the wind is over the fire. The good news is that things seem to be changing for the better. Allowing jumpers to get back to 10 plus fire jumps per season would save big money and lots of acres. For those who think we need to get more fire back on the land, all I can say is, Don’t worry, there’s going to be plenty of that given the way fires burn now. The policy of putting ALL these early season fires out while small would be a big help. That way, when August–the toughest part of fire season– comes the handcrews wouldn’t be scattered all over hell, exhausted, and the skies wouldn’t be filled with smoke so that Air Ops are critically limited. As I mentioned above, things seem to be changing, using jumpers more here and there on various forests in the west. Hopefully that will continue.
To go on here, I talk with jumpers and hotshots all the time and they tell me that “Yes, sometimes the fuels and new fire weather are a factor in making fires harder to catch.” But MOSTLY, they say, there’s always something that can be done to catch these fires if they are hit while small. As I wrote in Smokejumper magazine last summer, the Rouge River-Siskiyou N.F. in Southern Oregon has taken a more aggressive approach to putting fires out small. In the last three seasons they’ve had 192 fires and ONLY burned 50 acres. This was achieved by prepositioning jumpers during lightning storms, better utilization of rappellers, and contract fire resources. You can read the full article on Wildfire Today by finding it in the archives here. It seems other forests are looking at that now and changes are in the wind. My latest novel, Too Steep and Too Rough tells the story of what I’ve seen as the big problem with weak initial attack here locally in the past two decades. Over and over, while on my lookout, Duzel Rock, I here that certain fires weren’t attacked early because the country was “too steep and too rough.”
Here’s an interesting story from the WaPo (thanks to Nick Smith!).
Although this can be accomplished with prescribed burns, the risk of controlled fires getting out of hand has foresters embracing another solution: selectively sawing trees, then stripping the limbs from their trunks and collecting the debris.
The challenge now is what to do with all those piles of sticks, which create fire hazards of their own. Some environmental scientists believe they have an answer: mushrooms. Fungus has an uncommon knack for transformation. Give it garbage, plastic, even corpses, and it will convert them all into something else — for instance, nutrient-rich soil.
An alternative to fire
Down where the Rocky Mountains meet the plains, in pockets of forest west of Denver, mycologists like Zach Hedstrom are harnessing this unique trait to transform fire fuel into a valuable asset for local agriculture.
For Hedstrom, the idea sprung from an experiment on a local organic vegetable farm. He and the farm owner had introduced a native oyster mushroom to wood chips from a tree that fell in a windstorm.
When slash piles are set alight, they burn longer and hotter than most wildfires over a concentrated area. This leaves behind blistered soil where native vegetation struggles for decades to take root. As an alternative, foresters have tried chipping trees on-site and broadcasting the mulch across the forest floor, where it degrades at a snail’s pace in the arid climate. Boulder County also carts some of its slash to biomass heating systems at two public buildings.
“We’re removing a ton of wood out of forests for fire mitigation,” Hedstrom said. “This is not a super sustainable way of managing it.”
He hopes to show that fungi can do it better.
************
Mushroom spread
For mycelium to be a truly viable solution to wildfires, however, it would have to work at the scale of the Western landscape. Hedstrom is experimenting with brewing mycelium into a liquid that can be sprayed across hundreds of acres. “It’s a novel biotech solution that has great promise, but is in the early stages,” he said.
Ravage doubts it could be so easy. “Half the battle is how you target the slash,” he said. Success stories like Balcones are rare. Ravage has spent a decade cultivating wild saprophytes and perfecting methods of applying them in Colorado’s forests.
He begins by mulching slash to give his fungi a head start. Then he seeds the mulch with with spawn, or spores that have already begun growing on blocks of the same material, and wets them down. Fungi require damp conditions and will survive in the mulch if it is piled deeply enough. Given the changing character of Western forests, however, aridity poses a serious hurdle.
I suspect aridity was probably a serious hurdle without the character of Western forests changing one iota.
Not sure I’d want to write the EIS for this; although it would be interesting to see who would be on what side.
Wouldn’t it be great if folks imagined doing an EIS before they embarked on certain research ideas (e.g. solar geoengineering?)?
Does anyone else remember when some environmental folks had concerns about collecting tree seeds and “”disrupting gene complexes” if the FS did not use seed from the same site (1980’s, Pacific Northwest). And now, folks talk about moving them farther based on computer models and that is considered a great idea by many. I wonder if it’s actually the practice itself, who’s doing the practice (and their motives), or why they’re doing the practice, that leads to these apparent differences in being pro or anti various forms of humanipulation.
One thing the reporter did not note is that carbon is released by fungi working on wood, albeit more slowly than burning in piles. And of course, there’s no smoke and waiting for appropriate weather conditions. Actually using the material for something (buildings, heat, electricity, ?), and capturing the carbon is something many folks are working on, thanks to USDA and other grants. Which might be worth another story.
**************
Anyway, the complexity of decomposition is interesting, check out this paper..and then this one about insects and fungi.
Furthermore, we apply the experimentally derived decomposition function to a global map of deadwood carbon synthesized from empirical and remote-sensing data, obtaining an estimate of 10.9 ± 3.2 petagram of carbon per year released from deadwood globally, with 93 per cent originating from tropical forests.