Steve Wilent

This January 2022 article in The Atlantic was recently mentioned in an email from the magazine to subscribers. A quandary: the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner fuels — and electric cars — requires metals such as cobalt, and thus mining.

Excerpt:

The Salmon-Challis sits atop what is known as the Idaho Cobalt Belt, a 34-mile-long geological formation of sedimentary rock that contains some of the largest cobalt deposits in the country. As the global market for lithium-ion batteries has grown—and the price of cobalt along with it—so has commercial interest in the belt. At least six mining companies have applied for permits from the U.S. Forest Service to operate in the region. Most of these companies are in the early stages of exploration; one has started to build a mine. In Idaho, as in much of the world, the clean-energy revolution is reshaping the geography of resource extraction.

…

Johnson’s group, which has fought for decades to protect the state’s forests and streams from mine pollution, is watching the new and proposed cobalt mines closely, evaluating them on a case-by-case basis. “Do we have a moral obligation to mine cobalt here in the U.S.?” asks Idaho Conservation League Executive Director Justin Hayes. He suggests that the answer is yes: He’s well aware of the human-rights abuses documented in the Congo, and of the need to secure a reliable supply of cobalt in order to reduce the threat of climate change. Still, he emphasizes that “sustainable mining,” a term used often by industry insiders, is a misnomer; the best anyone can hope for is “environmentally responsible mining.”

This article from the American Bar Association has this section: Tribal Co-Management Between the Karuk Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service in the Klamath National Forest (thanks to Nick Smith for the link).

Excerpt:

A short-lived co-management arrangement between the Karuk Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Klamath National Forest illustrates both the potential possibilities and challenges of co-management arrangements between tribes and the USFS in National Forests. The “Ti Bar Demonstration Project” was a co-management arrangement between the Karuk Tribe and the USFS relating to management of “cultural areas” within the Klamath National Forest in the latter half of the 1990s. This arrangement aimed to demonstrate culturally appropriate management techniques and “develop effective processes to jointly undertake projects.”

Karuk tribal land managers served as project co-leads and were empowered to propose restoration treatments for this area within the National Forest. Notably, the USFS appointed a tribal member to the interdisciplinary team that was developing a new Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Klamath National Forest. This allowed the Karuk Tribe to successfully lobby the USFS to “address several cultural resource management concerns,” and include within the LRMP a land use designation for Cultural Management Areas that included a memorandum of understanding between the USFS and the Karuk Tribe to support management activities that are “consistent with [the tribe’s] custom and culture.” Tribal inclusion on the interdisciplinary team enabled “agency managers to work with tribal managers as a new kind of expert,” and was the main method through which the Karuk Tribe participated in the formal decision-making process. This allowed Karuk tribal members to take on an authoritative position in implementing their own chosen restoration projects, such as a novel “eco-cultural” restoration strategy that included prescribe burns.

Unfortunately, after the first management treatments under the Ti Bar Demonstration were initiated, USFS leadership changed, and the new forest supervisor was not supportive of this arrangement. The planned restoration was canceled, and the interdisciplinary team including both USFS and Karuk Tribal members fell apart. Nonetheless, the Ti Bar Demonstration project represents the first time the USFS formally recognized the rights of tribal managers to manage cultural resources within federal forests.

Available here — thanks to AFRC’s newsletter for the link — abstract below.

AFRC’s take on the report is worth a read:

The report determined that wildfire remains the leading cause for older forest losses on federal lands, accounting for about 70 percent of all losses since 1993. Naturally, those losses have not occurred evenly across the range of the NWFP. The most significant losses occurred in the eastern Cascade Ranges of Washington and Oregon, and the Klamath provinces in Oregon and California. Those losses were partially offset by old forest recruitment through stand growth in the Oregon Coast Range, Olympic Peninsula, and western Cascade Range in Washington, where catastrophic wildfires have been less common.

Despite being a minor component of overall losses, it is important to understand precisely what “losses” refers to in the context of timber harvest. A likely assumption is that a loss of old forest from timber harvest is a function of a regeneration treatment (clearcut, shelterwood, etc.) However, the data in the report suggests otherwise. The graphs below illustrate old forest losses (black line) on top of disturbance intensity; note that the two datasets are not graphed across equivalent acreages on the y-axis. The data shows that some moderate intensity fire causes a loss of older forest, and some does not; the same applied to timber harvest. What is noticeable is the complete absence of high intensity timber disturbance–the kind that would result from regeneration harvest. Instead, nearly all the losses are a result of moderate timber harvest such as thinning or intermediate harvest to restore historic open forest conditions or to reduce the likelihood of high-intensity wildfire.

I’d add that LSOG harvesting virtually stopped in 1993 and shortly after, and that future large fires are likely to change the equation in a significant way.

LSOG = late-successional and old growth forests

Abstract

This is the fourth in a series of periodic monitoring reports on the status and trends of late-successional and old-growth (LSOG) forests since the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) in 1994. The objective of this monitoring is to evaluate the success of the plan in reaching its desired amount and distribution of LSOG forest on federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the United States. We began our assessment in the years shortly preceding the NWFP, but primarily focused on how LSOG forests have changed as a result of disturbance and forest succession since 1993, the year of the assessment that led to the implementation of the NWFP. We developed an annual time series (1986–2017) of LSOG maps based on an “old-growth structure index” (OGSI) using two age thresholds: ≥80 and ≥200 years. These ages represent when forests commonly attain stand structure associated with late-successional forests (OGSI 80) and old-growth forests (OGSI 200) in this region.

Maps showed a slightly increasing trend in LSOG forests (OGSI 80) on federal lands with a 0.3-percent net gain between 1993 and 2017. Forest Inventory and Analysis plot data from two measurement/remeasurement periods (2000s and 2010s) were used to corroborate mapped estimates. For OGSI 80 and OGSI 200 forests, we estimated gross losses from wildfire at 6.2 and 6.9 percent, respectively; timber harvest losses at 1.9 and 2 percent, respectively; and loss from insects or other causes at 0.7 and 0.9 percent, respectively. This indicates that, at the NWFP scale, processes of forest succession compensated for losses. The NWFP anticipated a continued decline in LSOG forests for the first few decades until the rate of forest succession exceeds the rate of losses. Decadal gross losses of about 5 percent per decade from timber harvesting and wildfire (combined) were expected. Over the extent of the NWFP, observed losses from wildfire generally met expectations, but losses from timber harvesting were about one-third of what was anticipated. Results were consistent with expectations for OGSI 80 abundance, diversity, and connectivity outcomes for this period of time. For OGSI 200, these outcomes were slightly degraded. Given that we are only one quarter into a 100-year plan, nothing in these findings suggests that desired outcomes are unattainable over the next 75 years. However, observed increases in frequency and extent of large wildfires, and expected additional increases owing to climate change, provide reasons for concern.

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and the Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils (CPFC) have released the 2021 National Prescribed Fire Use Report, “which for the first time shows acres treated by ownership type, revealed 1.5 million acres treated with prescribed fire on federal lands while nearly 8 million acres were treated on state and private lands in 2020. This indicates that 84% of all prescribed fire in the country occurred on state and private lands.”

“Collectively, federal land management agencies reported forestry and rangeland prescribed fire activity in 2020 on 62,633 acres in the Northeast-Midwest, 1,053,871 acres in the Southeast, and 355,352 acres in the West.”

A chart and data show that nearly 87% of USFS acres burned were in the Southeast. That doesn’t sound right to me, but may it is.

From the conclusion: “…the national prescribed fire program has many impediments to overcome. In order to sustain the current number of acres treated each year—and certainly to increase the pace and scale of prescribed fire use nationwide—capacity deficits, liability concerns, smoke emissions, and other obstacles must be addressed in meaningful ways.”

Judith Curry has an interesting discussion on her web site, Climate, Etc.: “Academics and the grid Part I: I don’t think that study means what you think it means,” by Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler). In this paragraph, substitute foresters (natural resource managers of a variety of disciplines, including those who use Rx fire) for practicing engineers:

There’s been a lot of discussion about the differences between scientists and engineers. The boundaries can get blurry and often are non-existent. In the energy power system arena, perhaps to my past professor’s chagrin, I’m afraid the more important boundary might be between academics and practicing engineers. Academics can approach the grid with some detachment while practicing engineers must keep it running 24/7/365. Practicing engineers have skin in the game and typically face consequences for errors and shortcomings, while academics and unfortunately many policy makers are more insulated. This brings to mind Thomas Sowell’s guidance, “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

So:

Academics and interest groups can approach forest management with some detachment while foresters must keep forests healthy and protect a range of values 24/7/365. Foresters have skin in the game and typically face consequences for errors and shortcomings, while academics, interest groups, and unfortunately many policy makers are more insulated.

Also from the essay:

The path for innovation for the grid is most likely to follow the model of power electronics. Academics propose and refine an approach for the enhancement of the grid and/or power supply. Detailed serious evaluations of the approach take place and maybe additional research is warranted. Engineers determine specific areas where the new approaches might be most successful and the approach can be employed or tested. Project successes will be followed by further improvements and refinements and led to greater expansion as warranted.

That model seems preferable to this one: Academics propose and refine an approach for the enhancement of the grid and/or power supply (or a complete transition of the grid). The media and policy makers determine it is worthwhile. Policy makers and the public push for sweeping changes that are mandated. Everyone struggles to implement the new approach broadly in a sweeping near universal manner.

This second model is often employed in forest management…. Just food for thought and discussion.

Greenwire has this article today (paywall, I think) and the topic may eventually be covered elsewhere. FWIW, I suggest that retardant may reduce the effects of wildfire in aquatic species. Andy will probably counter that retardant is not effective, but I’ve seen it work very well to slow fires and give firefighters a safer place to build lines.

Forest Service plans for continued use of fire retardant

Interesting blog post, “The rise and fall of peer review.” Excerpt:

Here’s a simple question: does peer review actually do the thing it’s supposed to do? Does it catch bad research and prevent it from being published?

It doesn’t. Scientists have run studies where they deliberately add errors to papers, send them out to reviewers, and simply count how many errors the reviewers catch. Reviewers are pretty awful at this. In this study reviewers caught 30% of the major flaws, in this study they caught 25%, and in this study they caught 29%. These were critical issues, like “the paper claims to be a randomized controlled trial but it isn’t” and “when you look at the graphs, it’s pretty clear there’s no effect” and “the authors draw conclusions that are totally unsupported by the data.” Reviewers mostly didn’t notice.

News article about a legislation to establish “1.4 Million Acres of Federal Land Between Yosemite and Kings Canyon [as] the Range of Light National Monument.” I’d much prefer Congress to create monuments than for any president to do so via the Antiquities Act, which, as I’ve said on Smokey Wire before, I think has been used in a way never intended by Congress when it created the act. The Sierra Club loves the idea. Nat Geo notes that “The sprawling national forest in California has thousands of mining claims, timber sales, grazing leases, and private inholdings, activities not typically found in national parks.”

Anyhow, I’d like to discuss not the politics, but the management proposed Range of Light National Monument, how management would change — taking national forest and transferring it to the National Park Service. The area is in the midst of a dire forest health crisis. Which agency is better positioned to tackle it? Not to mention all of the other uses….

Excerpt from a Greenwire article. I haven’t read the study yet….

Study shows worsening drought threats to Western forests

GREENWIRE | Drought — not wildfires or logging — may be the biggest long-term threat to forests in part of the West, according to researchers from the Forest Service and two universities.

A research paper suggested drought is the main contributor to ongoing losses of dense conifer forests in the southern Sierra Nevada, speeding the conversion of land to nonforest or lower density woodlands. Drought and the beetle infestations it invites were more responsible than the combined effects of wildfire or forest-thinning, researchers said.

In the area the scientists studied, they found that about 213,000 hectares — or slightly more than half of the area that transitioned to nonforest — could be blamed on drought alone. Forty-five percent could be attributed to drought and wildfire combined, and 4 percent to when drought and mechanical activities like thinning coincided.

That and other findings, the researchers said, together point to a need to manage forests through a mix of prescribed fire, thinning in some areas that have grown thick for lack of natural fire, and leaving big trees in place to protect against wildfire and maintain wildlife habitat. It also illustrates the dire future that may await forests in dry regions as the climate warms and wildfires potentially increase.

From Biomass Magazine. Seems like a very positive development. The Sierras are loaded with dead and dying trees, and the die-off in recent years is continuing. The state’s existing mills and other users of dead trees and debris have not been able to keep up with the vast amounts of material that need to be removed or treated, and the accumulations of fuels are likely to add to wildfire risk. These two pellets plants will help, but more are needed. I’ve talked to folks who study the forest-products industry who say that California, a net importer of products such as OSB panels, has more than adequate supplies of raw material.

California group begins development of 2 industrial pellet plants

Golden State Natural Resources, a California-based nonprofit public benefit corporation, is developing two industrial wood pellet projects within the state as part of its effort to increase forest resiliency and reduce the risk of catastrophic forest fires.

GSNR has purchased sites in Tuolumne County and Lassen County to develop the proposed projects. The planned capacity of the Tuolumne site is 300,000 tons per year, with the Lassen site expected to produce 700,000 tons per year. Wood pellets produced at the proposed plants will be railed to port for export to customers that use the biobased fuel for energy production.