Fire and Fuels

The Forest Service role in fire adapting communities

by
https://planningforhazards.com/wildland-urban-interface-code-wui-code

It’s rare when I run across reporting about the Forest Service taking an official position on development of private land.  Yet the importance of doing so is increasing in a world where more frequent and dangerous wildfires on national forests are affecting human developments.  Here is one of those rare examples.

Grand Targhee Resort in Idaho has proposed adding cabins to its base area of private land, 120 acres surrounded by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.  This has been controversial, in particular because of concerns about limited access and how the Resort would plan for and respond to wildfire.  The Forest Service has expressed concerns to the county commissioners about the ability to fight wildfires there.

Asked where Targhee fell in his list of wildfire priorities, Jay Pence, Teton Basin District Ranger for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, said the resort was “towards the upper end.”  “It’s always been that way,” Pence told the Jackson Hole Daily. But, he added, “the new development just adds additional people and additional values at risk.”

To mitigate wildfire risk, Pence asked commissioners to require a few things of Targhee. It would be “helpful,” Pence said, to have “a clear and agreed-to emergency plan for the entire resort” as well as a “loop road” within the resort, and more information about “how the entire development is envisioned to be constructed.”  He also asked for fuels reduction work to be done while the cabins are built.  And Pence asked commissioners to “insist” on a 300-foot setback from the U.S. Forest Service’s property line, hoping to prevent the forest from having to clear vegetation on public land to protect the cabins from fire.

But Pence said any fuels reduction done on the forest will require separate permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act. It would likely require a separate analysis from the ongoing analysis of Targhee’s request to expand its boundaries.

This commercial development of an inholding is kind of an extreme case, but the kinds of things the Forest Service is asking for should be considered in any WUI development.  The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy identifies “fire adapted communities as one of three goals, and “Protecting homes, communities, and other values at risk” as one of the four “broad challenges.  The Forest Service has a “Fire Adapted Communities Program,” which includes “tools of fire adaptation” like, “Wildland urban interface codes and ordinances can define best practices for construction and location of new development in a WUI community …”

I would like to know if there is also any agency guidance for Forest Service land managers for how to promote achieving these desired outcomes.  They need to be able to effectively participate in local planning for private land developments that will become “values at risk” for national forest fire management.  This ranger is doing the right thing, but is there any agency leadership that would encourage more of it?

 

Are large, eastside grand firs friend or foe?

by
Large-diameter grand fir (Abies grandis) in a mesic, mixed-conifer forest of northeast Oregon. Credit: Conservation Science and Practice (2023).

A new release from a some of our favorite authors about the proposed amendment to the Oregon and Washington Eastside Screens forest plan requirements – the “21-inch rule.”  The primary focus is summarized here (and there is a link to the research paper):

“Interest is growing in policy opportunities that align biodiversity conservation and recovery with climate change mitigation and adaptation priorities. The authors conclude that “21-inch rule” provides an excellent example of such a policy initiated for wildlife and habitat protection that has also provided significant climate mitigation values across extensive forests of the PNW Region.”

Until I saw this photo, I had imagined an army of evil grand fir trees sneaking up under pines and larch, and stealing their water and threatening to burn them up.  They seem to be the Forest Service’s Enemy #1 these days in eastern Oregon and Washington.  So dangerous, in fact, that the agency undertook another dreaded forest plan amendment process to give the agency more weapons to fight off this scourge.

This paper portrays them in a much different light, as providing benefits to both carbon storage and resilience to fire (along with their original wildlife protection benefits targeted by the original Eastside Screens amendment) – and NOT posing a substantial barrier to fuel treatment.

“The key rationale for amending the 21-inch rule is that increased cutting of large-diameter fir trees (≥53 cm DBH and <150 years) is needed to facilitate the conservation and recruitment of early-seral, shade-intolerant old ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and western larch (Larix occidentalis) by reducing competition from shade-tolerant large grand fir (Abies grandis) (USDA, 2021).

This represents a major shift in management of large trees across the region, highlighting escalating tradeoffs between goals for carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change, and efforts to increase the pace, scale, and intensity of cutting across national forest lands. The potential impacts of removal of large grand fir on wildfire are unclear, although a trait-based approach to assess fire resistance found that the grand fir forest type had the second highest fire resistance score, and one of the lowest fire severity values among forest types of the Inland Northwest USA (Moris et al., 2022).

Large ponderosa pine co-mingle with large grand fir about 14% of the time (259 plots), leaving 86% of plots with large ponderosa pine without large grand fir (1616 plots). Similarly, large western larch co-mingle with large grand fir about 56% of the time. Large ponderosa pine and grand fir are found together on only 8% of all plots in the region, while large larch and grand fir are found together on only 4% of all plots in the region.  (I added the emphasis for clarity.)

Enhancing forest resilience does not necessitate widespread cutting of any large-diameter tree species. Favoring early-seral species can be achieved with a focus on smaller trees and restoring surface fire, while retaining the existing large tree population.”

If nothing else, these conclusions clearly refute the Forest Service argument that reducing fire risk is “impossible” without logging the few (but important) large grand fir trees.

Fuelbreaks or Maybe PODs? USDA Press Release on Funding for Fuelbreaks

by

My idea was to stand down plan revisions due to the wildfire emergency/crisis, and have each fire forest focus on a wildfire plan amendment which would figure out PODs, areas and practices for prescribed fire and wildfire use, and also be the final NEPA point for POD development and maintenance, as well as prescribed fire projects, with an EIS.  So I was hopeful that these fuel breaks are PODs.

DURANGO, CO,  –

Today, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the USDA is investing $63 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to expand wildfire barriers, known as fuel breaks, to protect communities and firefighters across the West.

Fuel breaks slow a fire’s spread, create a safe zone for firefighters to work, and a safer place to conduct hazardous fuel reduction treatments like prescribed burns.

This new round of investments will support projects in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota and Wyoming to improve firefighter response, protect critical infrastructure and natural resources, ensure clean drinking water, support local timber industries, enhance rural economies and create jobs.

“For nearly a decade, scientists at the USDA Forest Service and risk management experts have tested and refined building these defensible spaces before a wildfire starts,” said Secretary Vilsack. “With climate change fueling the wildfire crisis, we are investing in this work through President Biden’s Investing in America agenda on an even larger scale as one of the many actions we are taking to protect the people and communities we serve.”

These opportunities were identified through a cross-boundary process that brings together Tribes, local wildland fire managers, business owners, elected officials and scientists to plan for future fires. In addition to using the best available science about fire operations and risks to communities, ecosystems and responders, this process supports the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy as well as complementary fuels treatment efforts.

Through this planning process, the Forest Service works with local communities to identify fire barriers such as roads, rivers and other landscape features that can prevent wildfires from spreading. In 2015, scientists at the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station began work with research universities, federal agencies, states, and independent land and resource management partners to identify these fire barriers in the development of wildfire strategies.

Reinforcing these barriers and constructing adjacent fuel breaks will help reduce the risk of high-severity wildfires in the project areas, all of which are in, or adjacent to, high-risk firesheds that are outside of the initial 21 Wildfire Crisis Strategy landscapes.

This announcement is part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda to grow the American economy from the bottom up and the middle out by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, driving over $435 billion in private sector manufacturing investments, creating good-paying jobs, and building a clean energy economy to tackle the climate crisis and make our communities more resilient.

Learn more about how USDA is confronting the wildfire crisis on the Forest Service website.

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

It seems like these might be a tool to settle down the folks who weren’t selected for the original landscapes.  Remember in various hearings, Montana and Wyoming folks felt that they weren’t getting their share.  So that all sounds good as does “the cross-boundary process”.  Does anyone know where these projects are? Is there a list?

Eldorado Roadside Hazard Tree Project on 2400 Miles of Road Begins Implementation

by
This photo is from the Cal4Wheel website.

Thanks to Nick Smith.

While roadside hazard tree removal seemed to spark much debate in Oregon, this one perhaps less so.  The EA is about 200 pages for  2461 miles. There were  three objections, described below. Here’s the press release:

The Eldorado National Forest is beginning the implementation of their Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project. This project is designed to reduce safety hazards along the 2,461 miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads, including 116 miles of state, local, and private roads in Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, and Placer counties. The project aims to ensure the integrity of the NFS roads and improve safety for the public, Forest Service staff, firefighters, emergency response personnel, law enforcement, private landowners, contractors, special use permit holders, and others.

It is important to address the issue of hazardous trees in the aftermath of high-severity wildfires, as they can pose a significant risk to road users. Trees that have been killed or damaged by a fire, as well as those affected by insects, disease, drought, or other stressors may become unstable and more likely to fall, particularly in high winds or other adverse weather conditions. This project’s goal to identify and remove those hazardous trees within striking distance of roads is a proactive approach to reducing the risk of accidents, injuries, and damage to roads.

The project’s scope is to identify, fell, and remove hazardous trees that are at risk of striking a road within a buffer area of 200 feet from the edges of NFS maintenance level 1 through level 5 roads, as well as identified state, county, local, and private roads through NFS lands. However, not all roads within the project area will be treated, and roads within designated wilderness areas are not included in the project scope.

“The Eldorado National Forest’s Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project was designed to increase the resilience of the forest to a range of environmental threats, not just wildfires. By removing hazardous trees that could pose a risk to public safety, and infrastructure, the project aims to reduce the impact of future wildfires and other natural disasters,” said
Forest Supervisor, Joseph Stout.

Treatment of lower maintenance level roads will be based on various factors, including administrative needs, permittee needs, access needs for utilities, and other uses. The project will use a variety of methods to remove the hazardous trees within the designated buffer area. These methods may include mechanical removal and piling, hand removal and hand piling, mastication, towed or in-wood chipping, and pile burning.

The project is conducted in phases, and the first phase will focus on 231 miles of roads within the Caldor Fire footprint.

This phase of the project is expected to last 2 to 3 years, indicating that it is a significant undertaking. It is important to note that detailed information on each phase of the project will be shared with the public prior to work being started.

I tried to copy this discussion of objections from the DN but was stymied by the pdf and my Adobe. So apologies for the weird formatting below.

 

 

A First Look at MOGgie ANPR. III. Preliminary Discussion of The Questions

by

 

Some of us will get sucked in to writing answers to these questions.. there sure are a lot!  The questions are pretty much about how can the FS plan and use adaptive management in managing for “climate resilience.”  Conceivably managing for climate resilience will also help with resilience non-climate biological, physical, economic and social stressors, unless folks have defined those not to exist (Everything Stressful is Due to Climate). It would be handy IMHO if the results of this and a 10- year review of implementation would lead to an amended Planning Rule.  A girl can dream… Anyway, below are the questions.  I’m still looking for helpful reviews of “why adaptive management hasn’t worked in the past, or has it?” if anyone knows of any.. the above paper is about the approach taken in the NW Forest Plan in 2003.

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

We are interested in public feedback and requests for Tribal consultation on a range of potential options to adapt current policies or develop new policies and actions to better anticipate, identify, and respond to rapidly changing conditions associated with climate-amplified impacts. Overarching questions include:

  • How should the Forest Service adapt current policies and develop new policies and actions to conserve and manage the national forests and grasslands for climate resilience, so that the Agency can provide for ecological integrity and support social and economic sustainability over time?

• How should the Forest Service assess, plan for and prioritize conservation and climate resilience at different organizational levels of planning and management of the National Forest System ( e.g., national strategic direction and planning; regional and unit planning, projects and activities)?

  • What kinds of conservation, management or adaptation practices may be effective at fostering climate resilience on forests and grasslands at different geographic scales?
  • How should Forest Service management, partnerships, and investments consider cross-jurisdictional impacts of stressors to forest and grassland resilience at a landscape scale, including activities in the WUI?
  • What are key outcome-based performance measures and indicators that would help the Agency track changing conditions, test assumptions, evaluate effectiveness, and inform continued adaptive management?

Examples, comments, and Tribal consultation would be especially helpful on the following topics:

1. Relying on Best Available Science, including Indigenous Knowledge (IK), to Inform Agency Decision Making.

a. How can the Forest Service braid together IK and western science to improve and strengthen our management practices and policies to promote climate resilience? What changes to Agency policy are needed to improve our ability to integrate IK for climate resilience—for example, how might we update current direction on best available scientific information to integrate IK, including in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) Section 1909.12?

b. How can Forest Service land managers better operationalize adaptive management given rapid current and projected rates of change, and potential uncertainty for portions of the National Forest System?

c. Specifically for the Forest Service Climate Risk Viewer (described above), what other data layers might be useful, and how should the Forest Service use this tool to inform policy?

2. Adaptation Planning and Practices. How might explicit, intentional adaptation planning and practices for climate resilience on the National Forest System be exemplified, understanding the need for differences in approach at different organizational levels, at different ecological scales, and in different ecosystems?

a. Adaptation Planning:

i. How should the Forest Service implement the 2012 Planning Rule under a rapidly changing climate, including for assessments, development of plan components, and related monitoring?

1. How might the Forest Service use management and geographic areas for watershed conservation, at-risk species conservation and wildlife connectivity, carbon stewardship, and mature and old-growth forest conservation?

ii. How might the Forest Service think about complementing unit-level plans with planning at other scales, such as watershed, landscape, regional, ecoregional, or national scales?

a. Adaptation Practices:

i. How might the Agency maintain or foster climate resilience for a suite of key ecosystem values including water and watersheds, biodiversity and species at risk, forest carbon uptake and storage, and mature and old-growth forests, in addition to overall ecological integrity? What are effective adaptation practices to protect those values? How should trade-offs be evaluated, when necessary?

ii. How can the Forest Service mitigate risks to and support investments in resilience for multiple uses and ecosystem services? For example, how should the Forest Service think about the resilience of recreation infrastructure and access; source drinking water areas; and critical infrastructure in an era of climate change and other stressors?

iii. How should the Forest Service address the significant and growing need for post-disaster response, recovery, reforestation and restoration, including to mitigate cascading disasters (for example, post-fire flooding, landslides, and reburns)?

iv. How might Forest Service land managers build on work with partners to implement adaptation practices on National Forest System lands and in the WUI that can support climate resilience across jurisdictional boundaries, including opportunities to build on and expand Tribal co-stewardship?

v. Eastern forests have not been subject to the dramatic wildfire events and severe droughts occurring in the west, but eastern forests are also experiencing extreme weather events and chronic stress, including from insects and disease, while continuing to rebound from historic management and land use changes. Are there changes or additions to policy and management specific to conservation and climate resilience for forests in the east that the Forest Service should consider?

3. Mature and Old Growth Forests. The inventory required by E.O. 14072 demonstrated that the Forest Service manages an extensive, ecologically diverse mature and old-growth forest estate. Older forests often exhibit structures and functions that contribute ecosystem resilience to climate change. Along with unique ecological values, these older forests reflect diverse Tribal, spiritual, cultural, and social values, many of which also translate into local economic benefits.

Per direction in E.O. 14072, this section builds on the RFI to seek public input on policy options to help the Forest Service manage for future resilience of old and mature forest characteristics. Today there are concerns about the durability, distribution, and redundancy of these systems, given changing climate, as well as past and current management practices, including ecologically inappropriate vegetation management and fire suppression practices. Recent science shows severe and increasing rates of ecosystem degradation and tree mortality from climate-amplified stressors. Older tree mortality due to wildfire, insects and disease is occurring in all management categories.

The Forest Service is analyzing threats to mature and old-growth forests to support policy development to reduce those threats and foster climate resilience. Today’s challenge for the Forest Service is how to maintain and grow older forest conditions while improving and expanding their distribution and protecting them from the increasing threats posed by climate change and other stressors, in the context of its multiple-use mandate.

a. How might the Forest Service use the mature and old-growth forest inventory (directed by E.O. 14072) together with analyzing threats and risks to determine and prioritize when, where, and how different types of management will best enable retention and expansion of mature and old-growth forests over time?

b. Given our current understanding of the threats to the amount and distribution of mature and old-growth forest conditions, what policy, management, or practices would enhance ecosystem resilience and distribution of these conditions under a changing climate?

4. Fostering Social and Economic Climate Resilience.

a. How might the Forest Service better identify and consider how the effects of climate change on National Forest System lands impact Tribes, communities, and rural economies?

b. How can the Forest Service better support adaptive capacity for underserved communities and ensure equitable investments in climate resilience, consistent with the Forest Service’s Climate Adaptation Plan, Equity Action Plan and Tribal Action Plan?

c. How might the Forest Service better connect or leverage the contribution of State, Private and Tribal programs to conservation and climate resilience across multiple jurisdictions, including in urban areas and with Tribes, state, local and private landowners?

d. How might the Forest Service improve coordination with Tribes, communities, and other agencies to support complementary efforts across jurisdictional boundaries?

e. How might the Forest Service better support diversified forest economies to help make forest dependent communities more resilient to changing economic and ecological conditions?

Fire Retardant Case: Judge Christensen and “Magic Numbers”

by

 

I liked this article from the San Joaquin Valley Sun..thanks to Nick Smith!  I like how reporter Daniel Gligich structured it in subsections.  I also like Judge Dana Christensen’s reported comment on “magic numbers.”

A Federal judge got his first glance at a lawsuit filed against the United States Forest Service that is seeking to bar the use of aerial fire retardants in combating wildfires.

The U.S. District Court in Montana heard oral arguments for the lawsuit on Monday, and a ruling appears to be coming soon.

The big picture: The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)  in Montana, the location of the Forest Service Northern Regional headquarters as well as where the testing takes place for chemical retardants.

  • If the court sides with the FSEEE, the USFS would have to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to use fire retardant from airplanes, a lengthy process that would span multiple years.

State of play: Amid the lawsuit, the USFS initiated the process of receiving a CWA permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency while simultaneously seeking proposed a 300-foot buffer zone for all fire retardant drops from would-be affected waterways.

  • In response, the FSEEE argued that 300 feet was an arbitrary number. Despite its argument that the USFS created the 300-foot buffer proposal out of thin air, the FSEEE asked the Court for a 600-foot buffer zone to be enacted.

The backstory: FSEEE filed the lawsuit last October, and in March a group of several jurisdictions and organizations – including the City of Paradise, which was devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire – filed a motion last week in support of the USFS’s ability to use aerial fire retardants.

What they’re saying: During Monday’s hearing, Judge Dana Christensen noted that a ruling is likely soon to follow Monday’s hearing as wildfire season in the western United States is about to commence. Along with an overarching skepticism at the nationwide impact of siding with FSEEE’s position, Christenson rejected its push for an extended buffer zone for aerial drops.

  • “The last thing I want to do is start imposing magic numbers in terms of buffer zones. I mean, that’s way out of my wheelhouse. But I don’t know what the Forest Service did to come up with 300 feet buffer, you’re describing it as being essentially nothing,” Christensen said. “It’s a magic number. And I will tell you, if this Court imposes a 600-foot buffer, that is truly a magic number. So that’s probably not going to happen.”
  • USFS attorney Alan Greenberg said during the oral arguments that the Forest Service uses aerial fire retardants on about five percent of the wildfires at site, and less than one percent of those discharges end up in water.

Interior, Agriculture Departments Host Summit to Develop Mental Health Resources for Wildland Fire Personnel

by

Lots of stuff rolling out this week..

Press release here.

BOISE, IDAHO—Last week, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture hosted a three-day summit in Boise, Idaho, to spearhead the development of a joint wildland firefighter behavioral health program. Formally established by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and announced in June 2022, and in alignment with ongoing efforts within both agencies, the program will address the unique experiences and mental health challenges of federal wildland firefighters. Through the Investing in America agenda, the Administration is committed to ensuring all permanent, temporary, seasonal and year-round wildland fire personnel have access to vital mental health services.

Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack provided opening remarks at the Summit emphasizing that both departments are prepared to meet the needs of firefighters and their families and are committed to work side by side to better support federal wildland firefighters to deliver more robust mental health services. Senior leaders from across both departments were there to listen and learn from wildland firefighters and mental health experts, as well as commit to create a comprehensive approach to support mental health needs of the wildland fire fighting community. The summit is a significant step forward in the implementation of the joint behavioral health program.

Throughout the event, participants examined what is already known about wildland firefighter mental health and the resources that are currently available to firefighters, including examining behavioral health programs successfully implemented by the City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, International Association of Fire Fighters, and the National Guard Bureau. Participants collectively defined a vision, framework and implementation plan for the program.

Wildland fire personnel are the backbone of the federal government’s ability to protect public and Tribal lands, vital infrastructure and communities from wildfires. They work in incredibly stressful environments that can have significant impacts on their health and wellbeing, including their mental health. This is exacerbated as climate change propels more extreme wildfires and longer periods of wildfire activity.

The goals of the new behavioral health program will be to establish year-round prevention and mental health training, provide post-traumatic stress care, enhance capacity for critical incident stress management, and create a new system of trauma support services with an emphasis on early intervention. By bridging existing mental health services and filling the gaps to address the full spectrum of wildland firefighter health and wellbeing needs, this program will increase access to services that build resiliency, improve mental preparedness, recognize the importance of self-care, and address the effects from cumulative stress.

President Biden is prioritizing mental health and has laid out a unity agenda, which includes a comprehensive national strategy to tackle the mental health crisis. Together with the other workforce reforms in progress across both departments, this effort will help meet the needs of employees, make the workforce sustainable into the future, and position the nation to address the growing climate crisis.

The Biden-Harris administration is also making historic improvements for the federal wildland firefighting workforce. More robust health and wellbeing support is being combined with proposals for a permanent pay increase for wildland firefighters, expanded hiring, and housing improvements that are included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2024 Budget request. These proposed investments are urgently needed, and they build on the temporary pay increase provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as efforts to develop a new occupational series to better define the unique duties and career progression of this occupation. Together, these initiatives will better position the federal government to recruit and retain wildland firefighters, meet the increasing challenges of more extreme wildfires, and provide much-needed stability, support, and improved career opportunities for the firefighting workforce.

In addition to these investments, both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act also provide historic funding for a suite of programs aimed at reducing wildfire risks, detecting wildfires, protecting communities and building more resilient infrastructure.

 

The Wildfire XPrize- Care of The Hotshot Wakeup

by

The Hotshot Wake up  does some good firsthand reporting and asks a key question about this..
Check it out here.

Welcome to the future… There are autonomous drone ships flying above our National Forests trying to detect wildfires. These unmanned craft are constantly overhead, scanning and communicating with an ever-growing number of wildfire satellites and self-integrating into public camera systems.

Once the fully autonomous AI systems detect a fire, they launch a drone helicopter which quickly joins the swarming symphony of non-human equipment. High-definition surveillance camera systems collect data and analyze weather and potential spread patterns of the new start as the drone helicopter makes its first drop.

This is literally right around the corner, and there is an $11M prize for those who can make it happen faster.

In the article, he talks about the different companies..

With the new wildfire competition launching today, I’m confident that many private military and California-based Tech companies will join in the competition to autonomously put out wildfires within 10 minutes… as stated by its founder.

Folks in the wildland firefighting world have worked hard to educate people on the need to NOT put out all fires immediately. This was the goal in early forest management and created overgrown and choked-out forests. Most recently, Rep. Tom McClintock of California pushed for a 24-hour rule on new starts and was met with a lot of backlash.

What are your thoughts on this competition and the systems being introduced?

I had two thoughts.. one is “when this works, how will that change the language of “increasing catastrophic climate-driven wildfire” with acreage estimates and so on.  Is there any feedback between modeling impacts and adaptation technologies?

But to his second question, I would think as the drone analyzed weather, etc. it could also call up WFU teams to engage.. or hold it until human beings “get there” and make decisions about engagement.  Lots of AI trust to be built there, but lots of WFU trust to be built anyway… might as well kill two birds with one drone.. 😉

Lotsa New Stuff from Admin: MOG Inventory, Reforestation, ANPR for Resilience, Climate Risk Viewer and Field Guidance

by

These are all of interest. Please take a look and let us know what you think! Here’s the press release. My first few thoughts are in italics.

“WASHINGTON, April 20, 2023 – Today, in anticipation of the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced actions to foster forest conservation, enhance forest resilience to climate change, and inform policymaking on ensuring healthy forests on federally managed lands administered by the USDA Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

To support these actions, USDA and DOI worked together to develop several reports, as directed by President Biden’s Executive Order on Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies (E.O. 14072), which he signed on Earth Day 2022. The Executive Order calls for inventorying mature and old-growth forests, setting reforestation targets on federally managed lands, and analyzing reforestation opportunities on state, Tribal and private lands. In addition, the Forest Service is releasing a new tool that illustrates the risks and vulnerabilities of climate change across the landscape along with a call for public input on how national forests and grasslands should be managed for climate resilience.

These actions represent concrete progress on the goals and priorities outlined one year ago in President Biden’s Executive Order, Secretary Vilsack’s Memorandum on Climate Resilience and Carbon Stewardship, as well as in the USDA Forest Service’s Wildfire Crisis Strategy, Climate Adaptation Plan (PDF, 26.1 MB), and Reforestation Strategy (PDF, 7 MB).

“Our forest ecosystems and communities are struggling to keep up with the stresses of climate change, whether it’s fire, drought, or insect infestations, it is clear that we must adapt quickly,” said USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment Homer Wilkes. “The USDA and our federal, tribal, state, local and community partners are working together to meet these challenges, pooling knowledge, sharing resources and discovering new ways to conserve resources, protect communities and ensure future generations can enjoy the countless benefits our forests provide.”

“Healthy, resilient forests are critical to helping us respond to the climate impacts being felt by communities across the country, because they store carbon, provide clean air and water, and sustain biodiversity,” said BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning. “The reports released today will help enhance our work to protect and grow forests by creating a scientific framework for further study and public engagement for effective forest management and protection.”

Newly Released Joint Reports on Forest Conservation

The Mature and Old-Growth Forest report defines what mature and old growth forests are, establishes the first-ever initial inventory of those forests, and shows their distribution across lands managed by the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. The initial inventory identified more than 32 million acres of old-growth and around 80 million acres of mature forest across 200 types of forests. The initial inventory found that old-growth forest represents 18% and mature forest another 45% of all forested land managed by the two agencies. Recognizing the many values of mature and old-growth forests, both agencies conducted significant outreach to gather public input from communities, tribes, scientists, and agency professionals in the report’s development.

Like all the nation’s forests, mature and old-growth forests are threatened by climate change and associated stressors. The initial inventory and definitions for mature and old-growth forests are part of an overarching climate-informed strategy to help retain carbon, reduce wildfire risk, and address climate-related impacts, including increased insects and disease.

As directed in President Biden’s Executive Order and laid out in the report, the USDA Forest Service and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management will use these definitions and initial inventory to continue to refine results, assess threats to old growth and mature forest stands, and conduct public engagement. In the near future, the USDA and BLM also plan to incorporate information gathered from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation mission, which will provide forest inventory and analysis plots using space-based laser measurements. These efforts will help the agencies meet the science-based approach required in the executive order as well as develop management policy and strategies to recruit, sustain, and restore mature and old-growth forests.

Pinyon and juniper woodlands are the most abundant forest type in the federally managed inventory of mature and old-growth forests, with nine million acres of old-growth pinyon-juniper across BLM and Forest Service lands and an additional 14 million acres of mature pinyon-juniper. This summer, the Forest Service and the BLM will be co-hosting public workshops focused on sustaining resilient pinyon-juniper ecosystems. The workshops are intended to ensure robust public engagement and scientific expertise and knowledge are underpinning the approaches taken to fulfill the Executive Order and other management strategies for ensuring healthy, resilient pinyon and juniper woodlands.

Interesting because as I’ve pointed out, previous forest policy issues and debates have always had a mesic/timber framing.  “Robust public engagement” might mean with those inhabiting those ecoystems- perhaps a different set of folks than the usual suspects.

USDA and DOI are also releasing a joint reforestation report (PDF, 471 KB) which includes reforestation targets, assessments and recommendations for increased capacity for seeds and nurseries.

In response to feedback from stakeholder engagement, the report offers recommendations to conduct seed and nursery operations, improve coordination with non-federal partners, leverage opportunities for innovation with the private sector, and build a reforestation workforce with partners like the Conservation Corps.

To develop targets for reforestation on public lands by 2030, USDA and DOI evaluated recent peer-reviewed assessments and datasets conducted on public lands and identified more than 2.3 million acres in need of reforestation. This report also includes an assessment of more than 70 million acres of possible reforestation opportunities with state, tribal and private landowners, providing valuable insight on how existing partnerships and programs could be focused where they are needed most.

Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking to Build Climate Resilience

With climate change and related stressors causing rapid, variable change on national forests and grasslands, the Forest Service is asking for public input on how the agency should adapt current policies to protect, conserve, and manage national forests and grasslands for climate resilience. This Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for National Forest and Grassland Climate Resilience will be published in the Federal Register and publication will begin a 60-day public comment period. The Forest Service is also consulting with tribes and requesting feedback on current issues and considerations related to relying on the best available science including indigenous knowledge, as well as climate adaptation, mature and old-growth forests, and considerations for social and economic resilience.

I wonder why the BLM isn’t doing this also?  They don’t need a comment period, as they already know how to build climate resilience?  One could argue the FS also has a pretty good idea.  So, what is this really about?

Climate Risk Viewer

As part of today’s announcement, the USDA Forest Service is sharing the beta version of a new tool to assess climate risks and vulnerabilities called the Forest Service Climate Risk Viewer. Developed with 28 high-quality datasets, it shows how resources overlap with climate exposure and vulnerability. This allows for more localized analysis of how climate adaptation can maintain, restore and expand forest ecosystems and watersheds. The viewer includes the new mature and old-growth forest inventory data for the Forest Service as well as datasets to identify gaps between current management and potential conservation and adaptation practices.

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Field Guidance

In keeping with the spirit of President Biden’s Executive Order, earlier this week Forest Service Deputy Chief Chris French sent a letter to Forest Service Regional Foresters outlining leadership direction related to implementation of section 40803(g) of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law regarding, which requires the consideration of how to manage for among other things, large trees and old growth stands in forest health projects.”

I’m not sure how this last one might fit with legislative intent, but if it’s not, I’m sure that Congressional folks will point it out.