Landscape Scale

Increasing the Scope and Scale of Treatments- WaPo Story on the Medicine Bow Landscape Project- I of II

by

Photo from the MedBow Landscape EIS

You don’t expect the Washington Post to take an interest in what’s going on in Wyoming, so this story was something of a surprise.

The take-home message is that forests are trying landscape-scale NEPA. We’ve heard from many scientists and others that we need to “increase the pace and scale of treatments to get fire back on the landscape.” So different sets of folks are trying that. People who don’t like CEs(categorical exclusions) should love these, one would think, because that’s exactly where projects and their interactions analyzed through space and time with a full EIS and all the appurtenances. In the somewhat, similar Black Hills Resilient Landscape Project, they added a multiparty monitoring effort so that findings toward the beginning could inform projects toward the end- that sounds great to me. Theoretically, this could be the perfect form of NEPA for ongoing vegetation management and prescribed burning programs.

This WaPo story is interesting for many reasons, and worthy of our attention because it reflects the intersection of concerns about how NEPA is done nd about doing land management actions. The story kind of shifts between the idea of “doing NEPA” and “whether treatments work” and “whether you can afford them.” I look at “doing big NEPA” as setting the NEPA table. You don’t know if the chef (Congress (not the President), the WO and your region) is going to give you one french fry, or a five-course gourmet meal with wine. You don’t know if the State or TNC or other partners will pop into the kitchen and fix a nice dessert. Now, if you are the chef, would you want to serve a dining room where tables were set or not?

The ­15-year project, a marked departure from the agency’s historical approach to restoration, is moving forward as President Trump blames the deadliest wildfire in California’s history on “gross mismanagement of the forests” — a widely disputed allegation.

(It seems to be a WaPo standard along with the ever-present Democracy Dies in Darkness banner, that each story must somehow involve the narrative that Trump is bad. Of course, Trump’s statement might have been a reason to look into this topic for them, so maybe his tweets are having some positive benefits! My italics.)

The Trump administration’s shift to decades-long management plans encompassing vast stretches is in stark contrast to the Forest Service’s historical practice of grooming parcels of 3,000 to 10,000 acres over a period of months. In New Mexico, the agency is preparing an environmental report for the 185,586-acre Luna Restoration Project in the Gila National Forest. Work on the 179,054-acre La Garita Hills Restoration Project in Colorado’s Rio Grande National Forest is underway.

NEPA folks have been talking about “big gulp” project for many years. One concern was strategic.. bigger projects make bigger targets for folks who want to litigate them. In planning, we used to talk about the “flotilla of small boats” compared to the Queen Mary. If litigators want to be efficient with their time and energy, they would tend to go after big projects. I’m not sure if that is the reason, but many of these larger projects have been successful in areas where litigation is not so frequent. The Black Hills, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming. There’s also the Blue Mountains Resiliency Project, started in 2015 with a link here. The sweet spot might be “where infrastructure still exists and litigation is not so frequent.”

As Andy mentions in his quote, 4FRI was also large-scale and started long before Trump. During the Obama Administration, I remember calls with CEQ in which CEQ asked EPA to stand down from their concerns about a large project on the Black Hills. Their point was that no changes to CEQ regs are needed, it is possible to do large projects with existing regs. In this case, it was indeed possible with high level support and inter-agency strong-arming when necessary. My point is that the pattern of going toward landscape-scale NEPA has been going on longer than the current Administration.

Zoning in the WUI

by

Another example of someone doing something right.  But it’s not the Forest Service; the Deschutes National Forest was listed as an agency that “either had no comment or did not respond to the notice.”  (The forest plan management area for much of the adjacent national forest is something called “other ownership,” but I couldn’t find what that means.)

Developers said they’ll cap the number of homes in the new zone at no more than 187 units — 100 on the north property and 87 on the south. Lots would all be designed to prevent risks of wildfire spreading and protect wildlife habitat, said Myles Conway, an attorney for Rio Lobo investments. Plans also call for a 42-acre wildlife conservation area adjacent to Shevlin Park.

The environmental watchdog group Central Oregon LandWatch, which fought to keep Bend’s urban growth boundary from encompassing the affected areas, “strongly supports” the so-called transect zone, LandWatch staff attorney Carol Macbeth said.

“It’s critical to take a new approach to development in the wildland-urban interface, and the Westside Transect is that approach,” Macbeth said. “It will provide a 4.5-mile first line of defense against approaching fires for developments like Awbrey Glen as fires approach from the west and northwest.”

Forest Service: We need more fires

by

An article in the Missoulian yesterday discussed “Toward Shared Stewardship Across Landscapes: An Outcome-based Investment Strategy,” a new Forest Service initiative that “rethinks the agency’s approach to wildfire, invasive species, drought and disease.”  It seeks a more coordinated and broader-scale approach with the states.  It seems to focus mostly on “systems that evolved with frequent fire.”

“Pre-settlement, 20 percent of California was on fire every year,” Phipps said. “That’s the scale of the problem. Lots of communities are doing wildfire protection planning, but they’ve been looking at, on average, 50 times less than the large landscapes we need to be concerned about.

“This is not about pruning trees,” Phipps continued. “Today, on average we’re treating about 1 to 2 percent of the area we need. We need to create conditions where 30 to 40 percent of that area can be treated with low-intensity ground fire before we get a significant reduction of risk.”

Rawlings also acknowledged that prescribed burning was a more inexpensive way of treating the forest than harvesting. And according to Forest Service research, more burning must happen for even productive timber land to stay healthy. Examinations of last year’s Rice Ridge and Lolo Peak fires near Missoula showed that even heavily logged timber stands had little effect on the big fires’ progress. But past burn scars and prescribed burn areas did slow or redirect the fires.

“We know in these fire-adapted systems, there’s no substitute for fire,” Phipps said. “Even in areas where there’s commercial value, if we want to reduce the fuel density of forests, we still have to bring fire back.”

That raises several challenges. The first is how to reshape public opinion about the need for fire. That means getting people used to having smoky air in the spring and fall, when prescribed burns can take place under safer conditions and release up to 10 times less toxic pollutants than mid-summer megafires.

“Prior planning opens up possibilities for us,” Phipps said. “In a year like this year, it’s not a good strategy to take risks and allow fire to roam on initial attack. But two or three years out of 10, we can allow fire to roam.”

“We need to mutually agree where the best places for investment are,” French said. “The way to get ahead of this is mutual, collaborative, cooperative work across the communities affected. We can’t do it alone.”

It looks like they missed an opportunity to promote the relevance of forest planning to making the strategic decisions about where we consider to be “fire-adapted systems” (or other areas) where active fuels management would be appropriate.

Slanted News?

by

I found an LA Times article regarding the Rim Fire, as well as the future of forest management within the Sierra Nevada. Of course, Chad Hanson re-affirms his preference to end all logging, everywhere. There’s a lot of seemingly balanced reporting but, there is no mention of the Sierra Nevada Framework, and its diameter limits. There is also the fact that any change to the SNF will take years to amend. There was also no mention that only about 20,000 Federal acres of the Rim Fire was salvaged, with some of that being in 40-year old plantations.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rim-fire-restoration-20180718-story.html

There might also be another ‘PictureGate“, involving Chad Hanson displaying supposed Forest Service clearcut salvage logging. His folks have already displayed their inability to locate themselves on a map. If he really had solid evidence, he SURELY would have brought it into court

Additionally, the comments are a gold mine for the misinformation and polarization of the supposedly ‘progressive’ community of readers.

Trump “demands” more logging. Really? Does he ever request, suggest or ask for information? I’m tired of hearing of Trump’s “demands.” It could be that some logging would be beneficial but the minute Trump “demands” it, it is suspect. One of his friends will be making millions on the logging and probably giving a kickback to a Trump business. Trump is the destructor of all things beautiful or sacred, the King Midas of the GOP.

A tiny increase in logging of small trees is very unlikely to generate “millions”.

You have no idea what “forest management” is. You want to clearcut all of the old growth forests and then turn them into Christmas tree lots and pine plantations. That is industrial tree farming, not forest management. That is the dumb dogma, speaking, not actual management of the forests.

Most people in southern California don’t know that Forest Service clearcutting and old growth harvesting in the Sierra Nevada has been banned since 1993. The article makes no mention of that.

Riddle me this, Lou. How did the forests manage before we spent $2.5 billion dollars a year on fire suppression? Are we the problem or the cure? Is this just another out of control bureaucracy with a life of its own?

Of course, no solution offered.

Rio Grande Water Fund- Landscape Scale Success Story

by

As part of thinking about the EADM effort, here’s another (the Rio Grande Water Fund) in the series of landscape-scale success stories. We’ve discussed it before, but now we have this excellent powerpoint from Laura McCarthy of the Nature Conservancy, presented at our 40th class reunion at Yale last fall. She received the Distinguished Alumna award from the school for this and her other work.

Some notable elements of the powerpoint are some photos of the damage caused by fires in terms of flooding and sedimentation.

And the amazing array of partners:

Based on the successes of the Flagstaff project, the Denver Water projects, we might see a pattern in which large scale projects over multiple jurisdictions are easier when 1) there has been a fire with negative effects in someone’s backyard or watershed, 2) leadership from NGOs come forward to do something, and 3) water providers or communities or other NGOs put $ on the table. Placing a bet on fires not happening (the argument that only x % is going to burn, so why spend $ to establish and maintain vegetation) may not be as appealing when the impacts hit you and your neighbors, directly, and within your own experience.

So here’s one hypothesis for why these areas perhaps have greater success in landscape scale efforts, and not, say, California. Because timber was never a big industry in the SW, perhaps the organized opposition to cutting trees (for commercial reasons) has not had an opportunity to develop. So perhaps people, and groups don’t have those issues to work through, at least not to the same degree- you could call this infrastructure established during the Timber Wars. Certainly folks like the Center for Biological Diversity and Wild Earth Guardians are headquartered in the SW, but apparently choose not to go after these projects (or they do, and that aspect has not been highlighted in the write-ups I’ve seen).

Another idea would be that this is tied to water and where water is at a premium people are going to be more careful. Our Regional Forester in 2, at the time, Rick Cables was thinking maybe California should donate to Colorado fuel treatment projects because they use Colorado River water. I don’t think that that worked out..

So please take a look at the powerpoint and share your thoughts. Also, I’m still looking for successful landscape scale projects outside of Regions 2 and 3. I’m sure they’re there, but I can’t as easily find out about them.

Landscape Scale Success Stories: I. Upper Monument Creek

by

As the Forest Service pursues improvements in Environmental Analysis and Decision Making through the EADM effort, it would be helpful to take a look at successful landscape scale projects and see if we can discern what they have in common. Certainly there is also shared learning on this topic going on within the agency, but this is an opportunity for those of us looking in from outside to see what makes for success, and perhaps give that as feedback to the process somewhere along the line.

Please submit posts on different successful (defined by you) projects to my email on the widget to the right. FS employees are encouraged to do so as well and I do not have to share the name of the contributor.

Here is my first candidate: the Upper Monument Creek on the PSICC National Forest in Colorado.

Here’s a description from the ROD of the project.

The intent of the proposed action is to restore more resilient ecological conditions across the entire landscape and particularly Front Range forests; reduce the impacts of severe wildfires on property, infrastructure, and natural resources; and contribute towards the long-term sustainability of a full range of forest values including creating effective wildlife habitat and protecting aquatic resources. The proposed action entails the treatment of up to 31,700 acres within the 70,600-acre UMC project area (Figure 4). A combination of mechanical thinning with product removal, service work, manual thinning, pile burning, post treatment broadcast burning, and first entry prescribed fire would be utilized to achieve the desired ecological conditions. Implementation of these management actions is expected to begin in 2017, and extend over a period of 10 years or more.

Acres treated: 31,700/70,600
NEPA tool: EIS
Collaboration: CFLRP
Time to prepare: 2012-2017
Time to conduct treatments: 10 or more years
Objections: 1
Litigation:0

I asked the District Ranger, Oscar Martinez, why he thought this approach was successful. Here’s his answer:

Given the nature of the objection, I still saw this as a victory for the IDT because we certainly had a large following of partners that were tracking the decision. To be honest, the process still took some time, but as the saying goes,… it is often necessary to go slow to go fast at the end. For us this translated into spending the time upfront in building a strong coalition with a wide range of partners that were fully vested in the process and the final objectives for the project. Consequently, the majority of the team’s time was spent in building the understanding and trust needed to support a decision that took full advantage of scale, complexity, and adaptive management principles to achieve those objectives. As we proceed with implementation, we expect that many of these partners will remained supportive and interested as we test our restoration assumptions.

The nature of the one objection is that it is pretty generic and from a person who objects or appeals a wide variety of things across the country. In my experience, this same person is not so much into the specifics of the project and makes a variety of what I would call “unsubstantiated knowledge claims.”

But you can check the objection out for yourself 20170618_UMC_obj_artley.
Note: I have seen some objections posted publicly and others not, depending on the project. If FS people can chime in whether the national database is gone, or what exactly is going on, that would be helpful. They are part of the puzzle.

Western Governors’ Western Working Lands Forum on March 15-16 Live Feed

by

Here’s a link to the agenda. Anyone who wants to give their impressions, please send a post to my email. It sounds interesting and right up our alley.

The Western Governors’ Association will host and livestream the inaugural Western Working Lands Forum on March 15-16. The forum will examine challenges of cross-boundary planning among state and federal agencies and tactics that span state, federal and private working lands.

Experts will discuss the definition and application of strategies as they relate to public policy-making for the management of landscape-scale invasive species, wildlife, and forest and rangeland.

Also at the forum: WGA will unveil a list of the Top 50 Invasive Species in the West. This first-of-its-kind regional assessment is designed to help land managers prioritize invasive species management actions and coordinate cross-boundary efforts.

WGA will be livestreaming the two-day workshop in Denver on YouTube and Facebook to enable the widest possible audience for this discussion. Please note that the following sessions are Mountain Time:

Thursday, March 15

Welcome and Introductory Remarks (1 p.m.): WGA Executive Director James D. Ogsbury and Andrus Center for Public Policy Executive Director John Freemuth will frame forum objectives and goals.

Cross-Boundary Conservation and the Endangered Species Act (1:45 p.m.): Regional experts will discuss strategies to expand species conservation efforts that cut across federal, state, and private lands.

Cross-Boundary Forest and Rangeland Management (2:30 p.m.): Panelists will discuss coordinated actions to support healthy forests and rangelands across ownership boundaries.

Cross-Boundary Invasive Species Management (3:30 p.m.): Scientists and land managers will examine techniques to prevent the migration of invasive species and how to coordinate mitigation efforts across management boundaries.

Implementing Cross-Boundary Planning: Practitioner Perspectives (4:15 p.m.): Panelists will discuss on-the-ground strategies they have employed to create effective cross-boundary strategies for land management challenges.

Friday, March 16

Balancing Multiple Policy Objectives with Cross-Boundary Management (8 a.m.): WGA Executive Director James D. Ogsbury will deliver opening remarks, followed by a panel that will examine the policy opportunities and challenges when planning cross-boundary projects.

Applications for Technology in Cross-Boundary Planning (9:15 a.m.): Panelists will discuss modern technologies that make it possible to plan and monitor land management actions at a landscape scale.

Progress and Considerations (10:30 a.m.): Panelists will reflect on lessons learned during the forum and discuss promising strategies for implementing effective cross-boundary projects.

Case Study – Cross-Boundary Cooperation: Successes and Challenges (11:30 a.m.): Representatives from the Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership and the Upper South Platte Partnership will discuss how they created effective programs that address resource challenges across ownership boundaries.

California national monuments pay off, and are intact so far, but not DRECP

by

Here’s some anecdotal evidence supporting the economic arguments for national monument designation.

Two years ago today, President Barack Obama created three new national monuments in the California desert: called Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow and Castle Mountains. Supporters held a community event to celebrate, noting that tourism to the area has increased significantly, as people come to see Joshua Tree National Park and then, go on to explore the new monuments.

Then there’s the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

Under Zinke, the Bureau of Land Management recently filed a notice of intent to reopen the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, which sets aside land for conservation, recreation and energy development.  “Lands that were set aside for conservation may now be open to inappropriate uses like mining and renewable-energy development, when there was already a consensus on areas where those sorts of uses would be appropriate,”

Another example of Trumpling the interests of locals in favor of reducing the “burdens on all domestic energy development.”  Another case where the recreation industry (and others) will have to battle the resources of the energy industry (instead of working with the industry as they did in DRECP).  Who is your money on?

New Study About Forests Impacted by Extreme Mortality

by

http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix146/4797261

 

Massive tree mortality has occurred rapidly in frequent-fire-adapted forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. This mortality is a product of acute drought compounded by the long-established removal of a key ecosystem process: frequent, low- to moderate-intensity fire. The recent tree mortality has many implications for the future of these forests and the ecological goods and services they provide to society. Future wildfire hazard following this mortality can be generally characterized by decreased crown fire potential and increased surface fire intensity in the short to intermediate term. The scale of present tree mortality is so large that greater potential for “mass fire” exists in the coming decades, driven by the amount and continuity of dry, combustible, large woody material that could produce large, severe fires. For long-term adaptation to climate change, we highlight the importance of moving beyond triage of dead and dying trees to making “green” (live) forests more resilient.

Prescribed fire in wilderness

by

The Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Plan led to a fuel treatment proposal on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests that included prescribed burning in the North Fork John Day Wilderness Area.  Objections included alleged violations of the Wilderness Act.  The objection decision included the following description of the process and requirements to conduct prescribed burning in wilderness.

The first two conditions that must be met are that “use of prescribed fire or other fuel treatment
measures outside of wilderness is not sufficient to achieve fire management objectives within
wilderness”. FSM 2324.22. A Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) was prepared that determined that use of prescribed fire or other fuel treatment measures outside wilderness would not be sufficient. FEIS at 404. The second condition that must be met is that “an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists has evaluated and recommended the proposed use of prescribed fire”. FSM 2324.22. The proposal was developed by a team of interdisciplinary specialists. FEIS at 3. The third condition that must be met is that “the interested public has been involved appropriately in the decision”. FSM 2324.22. The public was provided opportunity to comment on the proposed action and draft EIS. Draft ROD at 8-9. The final condition that must be met is that “Lightning-caused fires cannot be allowed to burn because they will pose serious threats to life and/or property within wilderness or to life, property, or natural resources outside of wilderness”. FSM 2324.22. The MRDG documents the current situation in which natural ignitions in wilderness are suppressed to protect life, property, or natural resources outside of wilderness, including adjacent private residences and communities. FEIS at 403. The final condition to be met is that there must be objectives, standards, and guidelines for the use of prescribed fire specific to the wilderness area in a forest plan, interim wilderness management plan, or fire management area plan. FSM 2324.22. The North Fork John Day Wilderness Action Plan specifies that vegetative changes resulting from prescribed fire would not be considered unacceptable changes in forest cover or visual/scenic quality. LRMP at B-2, FEIS at 215.

Finally, policy specifies that manager-ignited fire should not be used where lightning-caused fire can achieve wilderness fire management objectives. FSM 2324.22. The history of fire suppression in the North Fork John Day Wilderness and resulting fuel loading have led to the current situation in which lightning-caused fires are not likely to achieve the second wilderness fire management objective (“Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire within wilderness or escaping from wilderness.” FSM 2324.21). FEIS at 403. Currently, these risks and consequences within wilderness include the likelihood that “when a fire does occur, it will be of high severity consuming most vegetation and soil cover” and “could potentially remove cover for big game, produce an influx of sediment into anadromous fish spawning habitat, and increase water temperatures due to loss of shade” as well as limit opportunities for primitive recreation. FEIS at 215, 403, 406 and 436.

The decision was then modified to eliminate the wilderness burning, and the rationale was “once areas outside the wilderness are treated, agency administrators may select to manage natural ignitions differently (e.g. confine and contain strategy) inside the North Fork John Day Wilderness to further meet the project purpose and need and improving the naturalness component of wilderness character.”  The bottom line is that a “minimum requirements” analysis could allow intentional burning of a wilderness area without violating the Wilderness Act, but the objection process overruled those findings in this case and found that it was not necessary.  Given that suppression is allowed in wilderness areas, I don’t automatically see a problem with using prescribed fire to offset that (so I guess I’m not a wilderness purist).  (And someone might even say that logging could be good for wilderness.)