Just received a press release from the American Forest Foundation in support of the Rural Forests Markets Act, which would:

• Establishes the Rural Forest Market Investment Program that offers guaranteed loans up to $150 million for nonprofits and companies to help small and family foresters create and sell forest credits for storing carbon or providing other environmental benefits.
• Provides a climate solution by encouraging forestland owners to adopt voluntary land management practices that draw carbon out of the air and stores it in forests.
• Creates new revenue streams for small-scale, family foresters by making it possible to generate innovative credits they can sell in established environmental marketplaces.
• Brings investment into rural communities by reducing the financial risk to private investors who can contribute the upfront financing that makes these projects possible.

The press release:

Dear Senator Stabenow and Senator Braun,

The undersigned organizations are writing to offer our sincere thanks for your leadership in introducing S.
4451, the Rural Forests Markets Act. Together, we represent organizations with diverse backgrounds in
forest and forest products, large and small private forest owners, conservation and wildlife groups,
landowners, academics, and carbon finance experts, all proud to produce and support natural climate
solutions from our forests and forest products.

Even though our interests are diverse, the Rural Forests Markets Act benefits us all. For example, this bill
will help unlock capital investment that will allow America’s family forest owners to participate in
markets for carbon and other values. This bill will not just benefit family forest owners, but will also
support a diverse set of private forest owners seeking to participate in market opportunities that have high
up front costs but an abundance of environmental and economic benefits especially in rural areas.
Most importantly, we urge you to add the Rural Forests Markets Act to any year end package moving
through Congress to help stimulate rural economies by opening carbon and other markets, bringing
billions from the private sector and generating additional landowner income from their land.

Once again, we appreciate your dedication in ensuring investment to rural forested communities is
leveraged and access to carbon and other environmental markets are available to amplify our conservation
efforts.

Sincerely,

American Bird Conservancy
American Forest Foundation
American Forests
American Wood Council
Arkansas Forestry Association
Arkansas Tree Farm Program
Domtar
Finite Carbon
Hardwood Federation
Land Trust Alliance
Michigan State University Department of
Forestry
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Association of State Foresters
National Wildlife Federation
Oregon Tree Farm Program
RenewWest
Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine
Society of American Foresters
The Lyme Timber Company
The Nature Conservancy
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Western Landowners Alliance
Westrock

NY Times today:

The United States Forest Service, an agency of the Department of Agriculture, is scheduled on Friday to publish an environmental study concluding that lifting the roadless rule protections in the Tongass would not significantly harm the environment. That study will allow the agency to formally lift the rule in the Tongass within the next 30 days, clearing the way for the Trump administration to propose timber sales and road construction projects in the forest as soon as the end of this year.

USFS press release is here. Not much info there.

USFS documentation is here.

Interesting article in Grist: “This Oregon forest was supposed to store carbon for 100 years. Now it’s on fire.”

Claudia Herbert, a PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, who is studying risks to forest carbon offsets, noticed that the Lionshead Fire — which tore through 190,000 acres of forest in Central Oregon and forced a terrifying evacuation of the nearby town of Detroit — appeared to have almost completely engulfed the largest forest dedicated to sequestering carbon dioxide in the state.

The project, owned by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, spans 24,000 acres. Before the fires, the state of California had issued more than 2.6 million offset credits based on the carbon stored in its trees. That translates to 2.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — or the equivalent of driving 560,000 cars around for one year.

As many of you are aware, the Lionshead fire is one of many fires to burn in Oregon this year, for a total of ~1 million acres.

From Smokey Wire member Roy Anderson, posted with his permission:

A week or so ago, I read the article linked below about wildfire in California.  In the first few lines it states, “The U.S. Forest Service estimates that dead stands in the Creek fire contain 2,000 tons of fuel per acre”.

2,000 tons of biomass per acre is higher than I’m used to seeing when looking at USFS FIA Data across other parts of the US West….higher by an order of magnitude for average stands.  For example, as a rough calculation, assume a stand averages 100 trees per acre and 24” DBH (pretty nice timber!).  This would mean that each tree in the stand has about 150 cubic feet of volume (bolewood) or 15,000 cubic feet of bolewood per acre.  Each cubic foot of wood weighs about 60 pounds (green weight), which translates into about 450 tons per acre green weight basis (100 trees/acre x 150 cubic feet per tree x 60 pounds per cubic foot divided by 2000 pounds per ton).  If you double that amount (which I think is very generous) to account for branches needles and all other vegetation it still only adds up to 900 tons per acre on a green weight basis.  An oven dry weight basis would be half of that.   It really makes we wonder if the 2,000 tons per acre figure is accurate?  If so, maybe its caused by accumulation of fuel from dead timber and other vegetation???

Anyway, I’m writing to see if you have an opinion about the accuracy of this?

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-09-13/150-million-dead-trees-wildfires-sierra-nevada#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Forest%20Service%20estimates,tons%20of%20fuel%20per%20acre.&text=As%20of%20Saturday%2C%20the%20fire,Huntington%20Lake%20and%20Shaver%20Lake

USFS press release received today is shown below. The Federal Register notice says little about the proposed regs, except:

The Forest Service’s proposed directive revisions align with the 27 States and DOI’s proposed e-bike rules in adopting a standard definition for an e-bike and a three-tiered classification for e-bikes and align with DOI’s proposed e-bike rules in requiring site-specific decision-making and environmental analysis at the local level to allow e-bike use.

In particular, the proposed revisions would add a paragraph to Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7702 to establish promotion of ebike use on NFS lands as an objective; [emphasis mine]

DOI’s proposed rules are here.

From BLM’s proposed rule:

The proposed rule would direct authorized officers to generally allow, through subsequent decision-making, Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes whose motorized features are being used as an assist to human propulsion on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-motorized use is allowed, where appropriate. The authorization for Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes whose motorized features are being used as an assist to human propulsion to be used on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-motorized use is allowed, would be included in a land-use planning or implementation-level decision. Such decisions would be made in accordance with applicable legal requirements, including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the proposed rule, where an authorized officer determines that Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes should be allowed on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-motorized use is allowed, such e-bikes would be excluded from the definition of off-road vehicle at 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a) and would not be subject to the regulatory requirements in 43 CFR part 8340. Additionally, e-bikes excluded from the definition of off-road vehicle at 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a) would be afforded all the rights and privileges, and be subject to all of the duties, of a non-motorized bicycle. Under the proposed rule, authorized officers would not allow e-bikes where mechanized, non-motorized bicycles are prohibited.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

USDA Forest Service Issues Proposed Guidance to Manage E-Bike Use on National Forests and Grasslands

Washington, Sept. 24, 2020 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service is requesting public input on proposed updates to the agency’s internal directives on how e-bikes are managed on national forests and grasslands. These proposed updates are in alignment with the Secretary of Agriculture’s direction to increase access to national forests and grasslands, and would provide needed guidance for line officers to expand e-bike access while protecting natural resources and other forest uses.

“Serving our customers and honoring our multiple-use mission is at the heart of how we propose to manage e-bike use,” said Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen. “Developing consistent, straightforward guidance on this increasingly popular recreational activity will protect resources, promote safety, and increase access to national forests and grasslands for a wider range of users.”

The Forest Service currently manages approximately 159,000 miles of trails across the United States for a variety of recreational uses. An estimated 60,000 miles of those trails – about 38% – are open for e-bike use. Other land management agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service, also allow for e-bike use on a combined 34,000 miles of trails.

The steady advancement in technology and the continued increase in popularity has led to an uptick in e-bike use on federally-managed land. In response, federal agencies are considering options for expanding access and facilitating their use. The proposed updates to Forest Service directives will generally align with proposed changes at other federal land management agencies.

The proposed directives would categorize e-bikes by class, allowing line officers at the local level to more precisely designate trails for e-bike use in a way that mitigates potential impacts on resources. The proposed directives also include e-bike definitions that are consistent with the Travel Management Rule (36 C.F.R. 212).

The public will have 30 days to comment on the proposed directives. The text of the proposed directives are available in the Federal Register. Instructions on how to comment are available at https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-2619. Members of the public may also contact Penny Wu ([email protected]) to make comments.

###

Oregon Public Broadcasting will begin a 7-part ‘Timber Wars’ podcast later this month.

“OPB’s seven-episode podcast “Timber Wars” (launches Sept. 22) tells the behind-the-scenes story of how a small group of activists and scientists turned the fight over ancient trees and a bird no one had heard about into one of the biggest environmental conflicts of the 20th century.”

I am saddened by the fires in California this summer, especially those in the Santa Cruz Mountains, in the redwoods south of San Francisco and north of Santa Cruz. I spent much time as a teenager roaming Big Basin State Park, Butano State Park, and other places. Beautiful places. But they haven’t been destroyed — far from it. Fire is as natural there as in other forest types in the west. I recall playing in old redwoods hollowed out at the base by fire, still standing and growing.

Fire was once common in the redwoods, but as in the Sierras and elsewhere, the elimination of Native American fire and aggressive fire suppression has led to high levels of fuels, dead and green. Some observers will point to climate change as the dominant role in these fires, but human management or the lack of it is a large and often ignored factor.

Here’s a paper on the topic:

“The Enigmatic Fire Regime of Coast Redwood Forests and Why it Matters,” J. Morgan Varner and Erik S. Jules, Proceedings of the Coast Redwood Science Symposium, 2016.

The Golden State is the latest state to sign a Shared Stewardship agreement with the USFS. Interesting: “nearly half of the state dollars invested in fuels management in recent years was spent on federal land.”

The press release from Gov. Newsom’s office shown here says “The Great American Outdoors Act … will provide critical funding for the Forest Service’s work in California.” How much?

Lots of good intentions….

California, U.S. Forest Service Establish Shared Long-Term Strategy to Manage Forests and Rangelands

Published: Aug 13, 2020

New Jersey forester Bob Williams passed me a link to this essay by Daniel Botkin and Lisa Micheli. 

An excerpt:

Now in California, and other parts of the USA, in the wake of catastrophic wildfire, there is an increased openness to the need to actively manage forest resources. One example is the fire mitigation work spear-headed by the Pepperwood Foundation in Sonoma County. Pepperwood had been actively reducing fuels on-site at its 3200-acre research reserve via forest thinning, including removing Douglas Fir trees that invade oak woodlands in the absence of fire, to achieve both ecological benefits and fuels reductions. Their grassland management also actively reduced fires hazards and enhanced ecological function via conservation grazing and prescribed fire, similar to methods advanced by Williams and others decades ago.

Pepperwood has the distinction of being one of the rare sites twice-burned in recent wildfire seasons, including the 2017 Tubbs Fire which burned the entire property and the 2019 Kincade Fire, which thanks to CAL FIRE and first responders, impacted only 60% of the property. In 2017, Pepperwood’s prescribed burn treatment area was the only the only portion of the preserve NOT burned by the uncontrollable Tubbs Fire. In 2019, first responders found that land management on the reserve seemed to help slow the Kincade Fire and thus allow CAL FIRE to secure the fire perimeter, preventing it from spreading into nearby Wildfire Urban Interface communities.

Here’s more on Pepperwood.

We’ve discussed Botkin’s work here in the past. Sharon had a Virtual Book Club series of posts on Botkins The Moon in the Nautilus Shell, such as here and here.

Is anyone conducting similar studies in western forests?

Press release from Harvard U.: — My <<comments>> embedded….

In a warming world, New England’s trees are storing more carbon

Unprecedented 25-year study traced forest carbon through air, trees, soil, and water

Climate change has increased the productivity of forests, according to a new study that synthesizes hundreds of thousands of carbon observations collected over the last quarter century at the Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research site, one of the most intensively studied forests in the world.

The study, published today in Ecological Monographs, reveals that the rate at which carbon is captured from the atmosphere at Harvard Forest nearly doubled between 1992 and 2015. The scientists attribute much of the increase in storage capacity to the growth of 100-year-old oak trees, still vigorously rebounding from colonial-era land clearing, intensive timber harvest, and the 1938 Hurricane – and bolstered more recently by increasing temperatures and a longer growing season due to climate change. Trees have also been growing faster due to regional increases in precipitation and atmospheric carbon dioxide, while decreases in atmospheric pollutants such as ozone, sulfur, and nitrogen have reduced forest stress.

“It is remarkable that changes in climate and atmospheric chemistry within our own lifetimes have accelerated the rate at which forest are capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” says Adrien Finzi, Professor of Biology at Boston University and a co-lead author of the study.

The volume of data brought together for the analysis – by two dozen scientists from 11 institutions – is unprecedented, as is the consistency of the results. Carbon measurements taken in air, soil, water, and trees are notoriously difficult to reconcile, in part because of the different timescales on which the processes operate. But when viewed together, a nearly complete carbon budget – one of the holy grails of ecology – emerges, documenting the flow of carbon through the forest in a complex, multi-decadal circuit.

“Our data show that the growth of trees is the engine that drives carbon storage in this forest ecosystem,” says Audrey Barker Plotkin, Senior Ecologist at Harvard Forest and a co-lead author of the study. “Soils contain a lot of the forest’s carbon – about half of the total – but that storage hasn’t changed much in the past quarter-century.”

The trees show no signs of slowing their growth, even as they come into their second century of life. But the scientists note that what we see today may not be the forest’s future. “It’s entirely possible that other forest development processes like tree age may dampen or reverse the pattern we’ve observed,” says Finzi. <<Yes, and the influences of management or the lack of management — less fire, more-crowded stands, etc.>>

The study revealed other seeds of vulnerability resulting from climate change and human activity, such as the spread of invasive insects.

At Harvard Forest, hemlock-dominated forests were accumulating carbon at similar rates to hardwood forests until the arrival of the hemlock woolly adelgid, an invasive insect, in the early 2000s. In 2014, as more trees began to die, the hemlock forest switched from a carbon “sink,” which stores carbon, to a carbon “source,” which releases more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than it captures. <<similar to bark beetle infestations in the west?>>

The research team also points to extreme storms, suburbanization, and the recent relaxation of federal air and water quality standards as pressures that could reverse the gains forests have made.

“Witnessing in real time the rapid decline of our beloved hemlock forest makes the threat of future losses very real,” says Barker Plotkin. “It’s important to recognize the vital service forests are providing now, and to safeguard those into the future.”

###