Steve Wilent

Steve Wilent is a forester, journalist, and educator. All of the opinions he expresses on Smokey Wire are his, not necessarily those of anyone else. Steve previously served as Editor, The Forestry Source, the newspaper of The Society of American Foresters (SAF, www.eforester.org). He's been a member of the SAF since 1982. He also teaches forestry at Mt. Hood Community College, Gresham, Oregon.

Trump’s NEPA Proposal

by

The Washington Post has an article on this: “Trump proposes change to environmental rules to speed up highway projects, pipelines and more.” The proposal is here.

The proposed rules would narrow the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to assess the impact of a major project before a spade of dirt is turned and to include the public in the process.
…
The proposed regulations would redefine what constitutes a “major federal action” to exclude privately financed projects that have minimal government funding or involvement.

That interpretation of the law would make it much easier to build most pipelines, which have become controversial as activists have sought to block projects that make it easier to extract, transport or burn fossil fuels linked to climate change.
…
Other aspects of the proposal would set deadlines and page limits for environmental reviews, so that, with rare exceptions, agencies would have to finish their most exhaustive reviews within two years.

 

How Tribal Experts Are Shaping the Federal Government’s Wildfire Strategy

by

An NPR podcast:

How Tribal Experts Are Shaping the Federal Government’s Wildfire Strategy

But going forward, one solution supported by indigenous communities in Australia and here in the United States involves setting fires intentionally. 

Today, scientists and the United States Forest Service largely agree with tribal members that intentionally burning sections of forests is an important way to protect against wildfires. But many tribal experts say that the scale of these prescribed fires still need to be dramatically increased going forward.

Also, this site has lots of info on fire ecology and management in Australia:

Largely as a result of European misunderstanding and fear of fire, fire suppression rapidly became the dominant paradigm in fire management; in most areas there was a large shift away from traditional burning practices.

In northern Australia, the disruption of traditional burning practices means that many areas (e.g. the Top End) are now prone to extensive wildfires that sweep through the country late in the dry season.

Sound familiar?

 

Lost trees hugely overrated as environmental threat, study finds

by

“Previous estimates argued that about 27 percent of manmade net carbon emissions were from deforestation whereas the new research estimates that the correct number is just 7 percent.”

Press release from scientists at Yale and Ohio State is below….

The study is open access.

 

Nov 04, 2019

Lost trees hugely overrated as environmental threat, study finds

Carbon emissions from deforestation much smaller than previously thought, economists say

Cutting down trees inevitably leads to more carbon in the environment, but deforestation’s contributions to climate change are vastly overestimated, according to a new study.

Deforestation for timber and farmland is responsible for about 92 billion tons of carbon emissions into the environment since 1900, found a study led by researchers at The Ohio State University and Yale University.

“Our estimate is about a fifth of what was found in previous work showing that deforestation has contributed 484 billion tons of carbon – a third of all manmade emissions – since 1900,” said Brent Sohngen, a professor of environmental and resource economics at Ohio State.

He said that widely accepted estimate didn’t take into account the planting of new trees and other forest management techniques that lessen the environmental burden. The model used in this study did take those factors into account, which made a significant difference considering the intensive forest management happening in many parts of the world and the less-intensive, but not inconsequential, management that is happening elsewhere.The study appears today (Nov. 4, 2019) in the Journal of Forest Economics.

“There was a significant shift toward treating forests as a renewable, rather than nonrenewable, resource in the last century, and we estimate that those reforestation and forest management efforts have led to a far smaller carbon burden on the environment,” Sohngen said, adding that the previous estimate was based on trees’ natural regrowth without any human intervention.

“Manmade land use and land-use change has had a relatively small effect on carbon emissions compared to the almost 1,300 billion tons of industrial carbon emissions during the same time period.”

Previous estimates argued that about 27 percent of manmade net carbon emissions were from deforestation whereas the new research estimates that the correct number is just 7 percent.

“Previous estimates overestimated net emissions because they did not take account of the planting and management of global forests over the last 70 years that was undertaken to build a renewable timber forest,” said study co-author Robert Mendelsohn of Yale.

“This forest renewal was a market response to the expectation that old-growth timber was going to run out by the 1990s. Companies started planting and managing forests in the 1950s to fill this gap, and the timber industry quietly switched from being a nonrenewable mining industry to a renewable forest-crop industry.”

The new study results suggest that efforts to decrease carbon emissions should focus largely on industry. Trends over the last 10 to 15 years toward less harvesting of mature forests and tree removal for agriculture are likely to continue into the future, Sohngen said.

But that doesn’t mean that environmental protection work should ignore forests, he said.

On the contrary, trees may have quite a large role in protecting against climate change if governments worldwide provide incentives that lead to more careful forest management worldwide, Sohngen said.

Forest management includes planting trees, selecting varieties, adjusting the stocking rates to optimize growth, thinning trees, careful fertilization practices, irrigation and drainage management and other approaches that enhance forest growth.

“Forestry and land use are blamed for being an enormous source of climate change, but they’re not an enormous source. The energy sector is an enormous source, and that’s where we should focus our attention – that and looking for ways to maximize our forests’ role in protecting the environment,” Sohngen said.

Mendelsohn said that the forest could be critical in efforts to solve climate change.

“It is possible to manage the world’s forests to store more carbon than they currently do. Some of this can be stored in near-permanent tropical forests that are simply not cut at all and some can be stored in managed forests,” he said.

“In the long run, forests could also be tapped as a source of bioenergy. If they are burned along with carbon capture and storage, forests can effectively suck carbon out of the atmosphere and help the world reach lower long-run temperature targets.”

Another Take on Soil CO2

by

A Oregon State study described in an OSU blog post in November:

Pacific Northwest timber harvesting doesn’t affect mineral soil carbon, research shows

Conventional timber harvesting has no effect on carbon levels in the mineral soils of the western Pacific Northwest for at least 3 1/2 years after harvest, according to recently-published research by Oregon State University and Weyerhaeuser Company.

The study is important because soils contain a large percentage of the total carbon in forests – generally about half of it – and understanding soil carbon response to clear-cuts and other forest management practices is vital in determining carbon balance in any given stand as well as the overall landscape.

Stable carbon levels in the ground means less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. An important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide’s concentration in the atmosphere has risen 30 percent since the start of the Industrial Age.

Historic in its scope, this collaborative and long-term effort between Jeff Hatten of the OSU College of Forestry and Scott Holub of Weyerhaeuser monitored nine managed Douglas-fir forest stands in Oregon and Washington, before and after conventional timber harvest and replanting, and involved more than 50,000 soil samples from 2700 sample points, thus far.  Continued monitoring of soil carbon with additional rounds of sampling is planned at these sites for decades to come.

“Our original hypothesis that timber harvesting would decrease soil carbon in the short term was disproven,” said Hatten, a soils researcher in the college’s Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management. “And I think it’s fair to say this has been the most extensive sampling ever conducted to determine if harvesting has an impact on soil carbon.”

“The no-result was remarkable,” he said. “Even where you have the highest soil temperatures and the highest soil moistures – the strongest environment for decomposition that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – harvesting doesn’t seem to have an impact in the areas we studied. And the results likely extend to similar areas, probably totaling many millions of hectares in the Northwest.”

Across all the sites combined, after harvest, the scientists found negligible change (+2%) in mineral soil carbon content and a 184 percent hike in forest floor carbon, the result of harvest residue.

Modern harvest methods are designed to cause minimal soil disturbance, and the stable soil carbon would seem to reflect that, the researchers said.

“Concern about rising atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations has heightened interest in the role that forests play in carbon sequestration, storage and cycling,” Hatten said. “Living trees sequester and store carbon, but less recognition has been given to soils’ role. We have plans to resample these sites in coming years and decades to look at the longer-term impacts.”

Citation:

Holub, S.M. and Hatten, J.A. 2019. Soil Carbon Storage in Douglas-Fir Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Before and After Modern Timber Harvesting Practices. Soil Science Society of America Journal 83(1):S175-S186.

Abstract available here: https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/83/s1/S175

 

“To Save the Redwoods, Scientists Debate Burning and Logging”

by

The subtitle of this Undark article: “Some scientists question whether controlled burns and logging are really the best way to preserve California’s redwoods.”

Looks at both coast redwood and giant sequoia, the effects of fire and the lack of it, and the role of active management (thinning).

FWIW, I came across Undark recently — excellent ‘zine. “Undark is a non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society.”

 

“Forest Service surpasses goals and breaks records in 2019”

by

A press release from the USFS today…. Plenty to discuss. These are the high points. What were the lows?

 

USDA Forest Service surpasses goals and breaks records in 2019

Agency treated millions of acres, expanded partnerships, access and supported rural economies

 

WASHINGTON, December 19, 2019 – The USDA Forest Service announced today that 2019 was a historic year for America’s national forests and grasslands.

“In 2019, through Shared Stewardship agreements we forged new partnerships and built on existing ones to better collaborate and share decision space with states, partners and tribes,” said Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen. “We also opened hundreds of thousands of acres of national forests to visitor access and sold more timber in this year than we have in any of the past 21 years, providing a sustainable flow of forest products and supporting rural economies.”

Creating healthy, productive forests and supporting rural economies

The Forest Service surpassed expectations and sold nearly 3.3 billion board feet of timber in 2019—75 million board feet more than the 20-year high set in 2018. The agency also improved forest conditions and reduced wildfire risk on over 4 million acres through timber harvest, removing hazardous fuels like dead and downed trees, and combating disease, insect and invasive species infestations.

Timber harvest volume from projects under the Good Neighbor Authority, more than tripled in 2019 from 22 to 89 million board feet. This authority allows the Forest Service to enter into agreements with state forestry agencies to perform restoration work to improve health and productivity on national forests and grasslands. To date, projects under this authority have taken place in 38 states.

Sharing stewardship responsibilities and being better neighbors

So far, 12 states and the Western Governors Association have signed on to work alongside the Forest Service to set landscape-scale goals, as well as share resources and expertise. These Shared Stewardship agreements allow the Forest Service to better work with partners to address challenges such as wildfire, insect and disease infestations and improve forest and watershed conditions while adapting to user needs. Participating states include Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

The Joint Chiefs’ Landscape Restoration Partnership, a combined effort of the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, treated 100,000 acres in 2019 to improve forest health where public and private lands meet and to protect nearby communities from wildfire.

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, the National Forest Foundation and the Forest Service partnered to set up a $4 million grant program to improve watersheds and reduce wildfire risk.

The Forest Service launched a community-based prototype wildfire risk mapping tool in Washington State. This tool is the first of its kind and allows local, state and federal agencies to fight fire where it matters most and to build fire-adapted communities more strategically and collaboratively. A nationwide map based on the prototype will be available in 2020.

Increasing access and improving recreation experiences

More than 5.2 million hours of work were logged in 2019 as part of the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps, a private-public partnership that engages more than 25,000 returning veterans and young Americans each year to strengthen America’s infrastructure and boost local economies. Participants helped to plant trees, reduce wildfire risk and improve forest conditions through vegetation management and hazardous fuels reduction projects, valued at $128 million.

Nearly 560,000 acres of national forests and grasslands were opened for access in partnership with the National Wild Turkey Federation as part of their “Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt” initiative.

Access and recreation opportunities were improved through the National Forest and Grasslands Explorer and Digital pass applications. The Explorer app lets visitors know where to find points of interest on national forests and grasslands and how best to explore them. The Digital Pass app was developed in cooperation with Recreation.gov to make purchasing day passes easier by selling them online.

“2019 was a banner year for us,” added Chief Christiansen. “Next year, we will continue to build on these successes to improve conditions on America’s national forests and grasslands to ensure they are healthier, more resilient and more productive.”

“We will keep building on the partnerships that make these successes possible and commit to increasing access to better connect people to their natural resources, so these national treasures endure for generations to come.”

For more information about the Forest Service visit www.fs.fed.us.

Bill Would Boost USFS Funding

by

From E&E News($) this morning….

Fiscal 2020 compromise legislation would boost funding for agriculture and forestry programs, including additional money for wildfire suppression in national forests.

For the Forest Service, appropriators said they would provide a $10.3 million increase toward clearing vegetation and dead or dying trees — known as hazardous fuels — in national forests to cut the risk of catastrophic fire, especially in the wildland-urban interface.

The measure would also boost funding for state and local volunteer firefighting capacity, helping to bring the total Forest Service funding to $7.43 billion, compared with $6.08 billion in discretionary funding in fiscal 2019.

The proposal also would devote an additional $1.95 billion to wildfire suppression as part of a wildfire disaster fund Congress agreed to two years ago. That is the Forest Service’s share of a $2.25 billion budget cap adjustment also devoted to the Interior Department.

NEPA at 50

by

From High Country News, Dec. 6 — open access, I think. I’m a subscriber.

NEPA transformed federal land management — and has fallen short

A look back at the ground-breaking legislation on its 50th anniversary.

At the heart of the legislation lay an optimistic belief that economic growth, environmental protection and human welfare might align without sacrifice or rancor. The law highlights the need to “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” It clearly takes a long-range view, incorporating tomorrow’s environmental fate into today’s decisions.

These values, though, tend to be forgotten, overshadowed by a procedural hurdle that changed business-as-usual for federal planning and decision-making. Before undertaking “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” — offering timber sales on federal land, for example, or building an interstate highway — federal agencies and their partners now had to submit “a detailed statement.” That environmental impact statement, or EIS, needed to be interdisciplinary and thorough, detailing any environmental problems likely to result from the proposed project and listing alternatives, including more costly ones. Then, the public was invited to comment. The procedure significantly lengthened and complicated federal land-use planning and politicized it like never before.

Lots to discuss here, and add….

 

 

80% of D.C. staffers could leave BLM

by

That’s the title of a Greenwire article today ($).

As many as 80% of the 159 BLM staffers in D.C. who are being moved to the new headquarters in Grand Junction, Colo., or to other state offices from Alaska to Arizona, plan to reject the reassignment orders and either retire or find another job at the Interior Department or other agency in Washington, the sources told E&E News.

BLM handed out formal relocation notices to almost all of the 159 employees on Nov. 12, giving them 30 days to decide whether to move to the bureau’s new headquarters and other state offices (Greenwire, Nov. 13).

That means the 30-day deadline for most ends today.