This is under the tab for “other”. I think most of them are rural schools funds but maybe not. NFF seems to have two $100 mill ish and one 50 mill ish all started in 2023.

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

Also the Great Basin Institute is not a Keystone but did get 59 mill. Looks like that was for some NEPA, perhaps:

In recent years, GBI has scaled support for several post-fire planning needs for the US Forest Service.  In 2022-23, the Sequoia, Inyo, Eldorado, Plumas, and Lassen National Forests have entered into agreements to provide specialist support and scoping services for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and Environmental Impact Statements to address post-fire needs after the Castle, Beckworth, Dixie, Caldor, French, Windy, KNP Complex, and Mosquito Fires, many of which comprise some of the largest wildfires in the history of the region.

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

Anyway, back to the Keystone Agreements.   I think a diversity of groups with a track record of on-the-ground accomplishments is the way to go to spend BIL-IRA bucks.  That being said, let’s look at this E&E News story:

The story provides a list of the groups with agreements:

The Nature Conservancy,  American Forests, Trout Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Foundation, the Mule Deer Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Student Conservation Association, and the National Forest Foundation. Officials anticipate further agreements, including with tribes and tribal organizations, French said.

What all of these folks have in common (except maybe American Forests, which has tended to be more focused on urban and community forestry) is a track record of accomplishing things on the ground on National Forests.

The organizations, including hunting groups, have relevant experience and an interest in maintaining healthy forests, said Tony Wasley, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, a nonprofit conservation group representing organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Pheasants Forever. “It’s a proven track record by these organizations,” Wasley said, adding that projects funded through the agreements are still subject to National Environmental Policy Act reviews. “It isn’t just a blank check and you’re walking away from it.”

So it seems like a broad diversity of groups with different interests and affiliations, but also with a working track record.

In some cases, the organizations partnering with the Forest Service don’t see eye to eye with the Biden administration on forest policies, or they advocate for approaches such as an increased use of prescribed fire that remain contentious in Congress. The National Wild Turkey Federation, for instance, has cautioned the administration against aspects of its old-growth forest plan and has a history of supporting forest clear-cutting to create wild turkey habitat. The group was the Forest Service’s fourth-biggest buyer of timber in 2019, based on volume.

I’m not sure how much “prescribed fire” is contentious in Congress.   We can ask “should there be a policy litmus test for federal grants?” “wouldn’t we be suspicious of a quid-pro-quo if these groups suddenly parroted everything that (some factions in) the Admin wanted? And “clearcutting?” yes, groups of people who like wildlife who like openings… tend to like openings.

The National Wild Turkey Federation’s agreement raises another question: How does the Forest Service, over a 20-year period, work hand in hand with organizations that don’t necessarily share Washington’s approach to managing forests?

It seems to me that given the list of organizations, and possibilities of future Admins, there will always be some who are more or less aligned with any given Admin.  But it shouldn’t matter as not everything is political.   There, I said it.  Of course, E&E News was bought by Politico Pro so that might be their filter on the world.

While the story focuses on NWTG, and their potential alignment with R’s..

The federation has supported Republican-led legislation to step back environmental reviews of forest-thinning projects and to create larger categorical exclusions from NEPA reviews, calling a proposal by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) to do so a “huge step forward in protecting the nation’s forests.”

Some of us, of course, recall that TU’s Chris Wood was a political appointee in a D Administration:

“It is heartening to see the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s resources being put to good use,” said Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited. “This agreement builds on a long and productive partnership between the Forest Service and Trout Unlimited. Together over the years, we have already restored more than 400 miles of important fish habitat, reconnected more than 700 miles of habitat by removing barriers to fish migration, and improved hundreds of thousands of acres of National Forest System lands. We are excited to continue and expand on this work over the coming years.”

Also, the Senior Vice President, Policy at American Forests is Leslie Jones. Here’s what it says on the American Forests website:

One can wonder about potential conflict of interest here. Suppose in an R Admin, someone was detailed to an office and that the organization they were from was given a large grant from the agency they were detailed to.. seems a bit revolving door-ish.  But maybe I’m missing something.

But what does CBD think?

Still, some environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, say they worry that the government is shifting too much of its own responsibility to contractors and, in some cases, handing forest management to groups more prone to cutting big trees than saving them.

“There are plenty of clearcuts on private and state lands that provide habitat for turkeys,” said Randi Spivak, public lands policy director with the CBD. “These agreements should not allow damaging logging on national forests in the name of ‘restoration’ when really, they are just clearcutting national forests to benefit a special interest group.”

What I sense from CBD is the concern that a bias of the organization could overwhelm the usual agency accountability procedures. Still since CBD is litigatorily inclined, and all projects will go through the same NEPA and litigation process as usual.. I think we’d have to dig a bit deeper into their concerns.

But NWTF is doing plenty of work of a non-clearcutting nature, as we shall see tomorrow.  And from Andy Kerr, NW Timber Wars veteran -about Eastern forests.

Kerr said he believes federal forest managers and some conservation and hunting groups have united over the years to keep Eastern forests in an artificially young stage to protect hunting grounds — an allegation buttressed by a January 2023 article in the  journal Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.

Unfortunately, the link to that paper did not come through from my source and I couldn’t find it looking at the journal. If anyone knows where I can find it, please send me the link.  I am a bit skeptical as there is relatively little federal forest to be found among the Eastern forests, but we’ll see.

In general, it seems like the people quoted in this article are concerned about some of the groups and the nature of their fieldwork.  I’m more concerned about some of the more nebulous or planning or strategy aspects of the agreements and how it might be that some NGOs are perhaps tasked with more thinking and writing work, with less expertise, than the Forest Service.  With its own Research arm, and thousands of practitioners spread across the US, I don’t think they need help figuring out what “climate-smart” is.  And there are accountability questions, which I think everyone from CBD to me and probably Congress, share.  What are your concerns?

The above is a screenshot from USAspending.gov. You can click on it to make it easier to read.

Update on Questions From Last Week

Dave Mertz has heard back that the Forest Service will answer the questions he posed last week. So we can look forward to that.

Suggestions for the Forest Service in Communicating

I’d put out a table that shows the agreements thus far, and how much has been obligated over what time period.  Once specific agreements for each project are approved,   I’d have each funded project with a project description, how much money, timeline, and accomplishments when they are finished, located somewhere they can easily be searched (not USAspending.gov).   (the above link is to American Forests, which appears to be $50 mill for Urban and Community Forestry, which also appears to be already obligated, that’s also the screenshot above).  It would be great to have maps also for specific projects, so we can see where the $ are going.  I’m sure Congressionals and others will be curious.  Maybe like the GAOA site.

My Apology to the Forest Service and to Dave Mertz:

I’d like to apologize to Forest Service folks and Dave Mertz.  When Dave and I were working up our list of questions, I added:

(4) Are the Keystone Agreements being used to avoid Federal Acquisition Regulations and federal hiring difficulties?

It wasn’t until I read it in his post that I realized how it might have come across as their ill intent, which I never meant.  I meant it in a broader sense (which I could have expressed more clearly) “are there specific aspects of the FARs and hiring that make it difficult to fulfill the intent of Congress in the BIL and IRA?”  Now, I haven’t heard about contracting, but I continue to hear about issues with USAJobs and the Albuquerque Service Center. On the other hand, vast infusions of money are probably not best used with temporaries, so perhaps the real question is about contracting vs. grants and agreements.

My intent was to see if there were obstacles that could be removed in order to proceed with success in meeting the goals of IRA and BIL, and maybe use that Congressional energy  to make some fixes of a generally positive nature beyond BIL and IRA, but maybe that’s a question for Congress to ask. Or maybe they should have asked before sending the money out. Or maybe they realize that Federal hiring and contracting are cans of worms that they don’t want to get involved with. Easier to send out the money and hope for the best. Gee, I sound a little like Andy.

What I Think About All This

Partners are very important and can be critical to the Forest Service carrying out its mission.  This is nothing new, about 15 years ago I recall a Region 2 Regional Foresters Honor Awards banquet with a video entirely composed of the Regional Forester (Rick Cables) talking about “partners” and “partnerships”.  The SERAL project on the Stanislaus, as we covered here, was successful due to master agreements with the County and others.

As I said about SERAL partnerships, “Various master agreements, including with the County, enabled finances to be transferred and work to be done without federal hiring or FARs difficulties.  Counties and others can hire locally, so that issues like housing affordability may be less pressing.”

It makes perfect sense, in my view, for the Forest Service to have larger scale agreements so that each Forest doesn’t have to reinvent the grant-making wheel.  Also, because of the temporary nature of BIL and IRA, the Forest Service couldn’t actually add people. And these agreements provide handy ways to stash the funding so that Congress can’t get it back (at least that’s how it appears).

Still, two things raise questions for some of us.. transparency and accountability, and that’s what the rest of our questions were about. Some of us are also curious about whether work contracted versus granted have to follow the same rules and have the same degree of oversight and accountability.  Folks with differing perspectives are equally curious about this, as we shall see in the E&E News story.

***********

While I was exploring the USAspending.gov website, I looked under the contracts tab by accident and found an $89.4 million contract to  Sierra Tahoe Environmental Management, LLC. for stewardship work on the Plumas. So large-scale contracts are also possibilities. As one Anonymous pointed out, though, both contracting and grants and agreements shops might be overwhelmed by the influx of funding.

.

Senate Committee Hearing on Budget on now with Chief Randy Moore.  If you have questions that you would like to know more about, please put in our comments and we will try to dig deeper. Here’s a link to the Chief’s written testimony.

New open-access paper in Forest Ecology and Management. A meta-analysis of 220 previous papers. Thanks again to Nick Smith!

Tamm review: A meta-analysis of thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfire effects on subsequent wildfire severity in conifer dominated forests of the Western US

We’re not done with our discussion of the 21 inch rule.. but it reminded me of the Ochoco and this piece I wrote for the journal The Scientist in 1987.  No WordPress then, no TwitX, no Substack so to get one’s views expressed, one had to go through journal gatekeepers.  The rich 21 inch rule discussion is an example of why we are all better off.  I think y’all will get a hoot out of how prescient I was (or not), and where it didn’t turn out exactly the way I thought. Still, this happens today, and it’s wonderful.

Here’s a link to the article, I reprinted in full below.

Scientific Discussion Should Go Online

Sharon Friedman

Nov 1, 1987

 Innovation is the key to success in today’s world, with changes in technology, natural and human- caused changes in the environment and sociopolitical change taking place at an accelerating pace. To innovate successfully, we must take advantage of the natural resource sciences. Millions of dollars can be lost while research is waiting to be published researchers end up doing things that are not effective, or wasting opportunities to do things that are. I suggest that we utilize the new communications technology in order to communicate results in a timely manner, conduct training and reduce instances in which scientists reinvent the wheel.

The Silvanet System

To use silviculture as an example, I suggest development of a statewide or nationwide computer network (call it Silvanet) on which researchers at all levels could exchange information. The network would have four sections: reports, ongoing work, ideas and notes on meetings.

Reports, the equivalent of today’s scientific papers, would include unpublished thesis as, negative results and repetitive studies ones in which a technique is tried on a different species or in a different environment). These three kinds of information are difficult or impossible to obtain under the current system. People who submit reports would be encouraged to add two sections in addition to those included in standard scientific papers: one describing the problems they encountered and their solutions, and a “right brain” section for their feelings about their work for which they have no statistical validation. These sections would be invaluable to others working on the same problems.

The ongoing work section would be the equivalent of a project proposal, and would alert people to the existence of others working on the same problem. Currently, researchers engaged in a study often don’t know that others are working on the same problem except through chance meetings or conversations. The use of a network would take some of the randomness out of such communications.

People would put their ideas on the system the day they generate them. For example, new hypotheses could be entered on the system, providing an opportunity for people who have data that might bear on the hypothesis to respond. Researchers attending meetings—especially international ones that relatively few can afford to attend— would be encouraged to take notes and put them on the system for other users.

The priority of an idea or a report would be determined by the time of its appearance on Silvanet. From the day it appeared, there would be no barrier to the use of an idea or report. Individuals would be able to comment on each other’s reports, proposals and ideas in a public file. By reading these scientific discussions, criticisms and rebuttals, natural resource workers could develop their critical faculties.

The Advantages

 Electronic discussion has several advantages over the traditional varieties. First, one has more time to think before replying and to develop more coherent arguments than in personal conversations. Then, too, personality is less important than when the discussion is face to face. Similarly, the sex, race, socioeconomic class and professional status of the participants may not be known, so that people could respond to ideas rather than stereotypes. Foreign languages are easier to understand in writing than when spoken, allowing discourse between two or more people who possibly could not communicate at all through spoken language. In contrast to phone calls, written electronic discussions can include equations, tables, diagrams and possibly, in the not-too-distant future, photographs.

Since natural resource workers with similar interests are often in widely separate locations, meetings are expensive and often only a small proportion of the total number are able to attend. Meetings become regionalized by geography, resulting in reduced interaction between regions.

Journals can be very useful, but many publish only a small subset of original research and can be slow to transfer vital information. Often, readers would benefit from criticisms of these papers. Electronic communication is not a substitute for meetings or published papers, but could be a powerful addition to them.

How to Do It

 The question becomes how to implement such a system. Each natural resource (or other) organization could develop its own network, but information transfer generally is already fairly good within a given organization. This is especially true if the organization has its own electronic mail system, such as the one the USDA Forest Service has successfully implemented throughout the United States. The true value of a network would be to link people who do not get a chance to meet. Therefore, the most logical place would be through a state government or a state university—institutions that often Scientific Discussion Should Go Online already have responsibility for technology transfer for all natural resource organizations within the state. At some point the states could connect their networks into a national, and ultimately international, system.

To illustrate how this would work, let’s take a real-life example. A co-worker of mine employed by a small timber company found some work in physiology that he thought might apply to the problem of selecting trees for a genetics program. He contacted a researcher at the local university, who was not interested in the problem. However, from the standpoint of the economics of his company, it was an important problem. If a statewide Silvanet had existed, he could have put his idea on the system and obtained feedhack from a variety of people, including many with different kinds of experience and interests. He might have decided to pursue the problem further, and requested suggestions and data he could use to test his hypothesis from people on the network. He then would have contacted the state biometrician for help with experimental design and begun to write a proposal to be put on the network. He might have gotten more discussion on the proposal, and located potential collaborators using Silvanet. Finally, the results of the study—whether or not the new technique worked to improve tree selection—would have gone onto the network as a report.

Ultimately it would be best for the network to expand worldwide, perhaps with the industrial countries paying the connection costs for the developing nations. Information on technical issues usually is difficult to obtain in a timely manner in these countries. Scientists in these countries would have the expertise of their colleagues worldwide available at the touch of a keyboard. Scientists in developed countries could assist the developing nations on a timely (same-day) basis, and scientists who are unable to travel for periods of time could also participate. This would expand the talent pool available substantially. Through the establishment of such a system—which would have to include training in the scientific method—we could truly “teach people to fish” instead of “giving them a fish”—in this case, a piece of technical information.

Friedman is a plant geneticist at the Ochoco National Forest, P0. Box 490, Prineville, OR 97754.

Thanks (again!) to Nick Smith for this link…. It’s an Oregon Public Broadcasting article from April 2 on the eastside screens, which we’ve discussed several times, such as here and here.

Federal judge finalizes protections for large trees east of the Cascades

A federal judge has finalized the return of national forest protections for large trees growing east of the Cascades.

The order brings back protections that had long prohibited logging trees larger than 21 inches in diameter from six national forests in eastern Oregon and Washington.

During the final days of the Trump Administration, the U.S. Forest Service amended its guidelines known as Eastside Screens. The amendment removed the agency’s 21-inch standard that had protected large trees across 8 million acres of forestland since 1994.

The agency at the time determined the change wouldn’t significantly impact the environment, and it bypassed procedures that would typically give the public opportunities to comment. The Forest Service claimed this sudden change was needed to thin forests and prevent major wildfires.

Six conservation groups sued the agency in 2022, arguing the policy change violated national forest and species protections laws. The following year, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman recommended the Forest Service restore the large tree protections, calling the agency’s decisions “arbitrary and capricious.” But his recommendations needed final approval from a U.S. district court judge.

On Friday, District Judge Ann Aiken issued an order agreeing with Hallman. Aiken concluded the Forest Service violated several federal laws and “failed to take a hard look at the amendment’s change and its impact on aquatic species.”

Aiken’s order calls on the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement, which is required when a new policy could harm the environment. That process also requires the agency to collect public comments.

The Forest Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Conservation groups applauded Aiken’s decision, calling it a win for eastside forests where just 3% of trees are larger than 21 inches in diameter.

The nonprofit Greater Hells Canyon Council was among them.

“The amount of trees that this actually applies to is very few,” conservation director Jamie Dawson said. “So it’s very important that they stay standing and are providing that wildlife habitat value: Storing carbon dioxide, cleaning pollution from the air, influencing the water cycle, cleaning our drinking water, all of the stuff that large and old trees do.”

Two stories about forest management in SW Oregon.

Helicopter logging project to begin in Ashland watershed and Siskiyou Mountain Park

Background on Ashland’s Forestland Climate Adaptation Project in its city watershed:

The first phase of work to help forests transition and adapt to the changing climate is reducing wildfire fuels that threaten our community and the forest’s ecological integrity. Phase 1 will utilize a helicopter to remove dead, dying, and crowded trees from Siskiyou Mountain Park and City-owned land in the lower Ashland Watershed. Helicopters have been used extensively in the Ashland Watershed over the past 20 years due to their low impact on resources. Phase II, expected to last several years, will involve replanting with species adapted to drought, heat, and frequent fire, along with ongoing use of prescribed fire for wildfire safety and ecosystem benefit. 

IMHO, Ashland is being very proactive — a great example for other communities.

The Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center objects and plans a rally outside the courthouse next week:

“Integrated Vegetation Management” Is Not What It Sounds Like

It sure sounds benign, doesn’t it? The words “integrated vegetation management” evoke visions of thoughtful fuel reduction efforts designed to restore and protect public forests and surrounding communities. There’s no doubt the name was chosen for a reason. Unfortunately, BLM timber planners are using their new Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) project to target old-growth forests within Late Successional Reserves for conversion into “open seral” stump-fields devoid of trees.

The other project is on BLM land in neighboring Josephine County.

Three conservation groups challenging BLM forest plan in Medford federal court

BLM Late Mungers project info:

Why is the BLM conducting commercial treatments in Late Successional Reserves?

Fifty-one percent of all forests in southwest Oregon are overly dense and our area has the highest need for restoration, via thinning and prescribed fire, in all of Oregon and Washington. The Southwest Oregon Resource Management Plan identifies active management objectives for Late Successional Reserves (LSR), including commercial thinning/group selection harvest on 17,000 acres in LSR per decade. These commercial treatments are designated to develop, maintain, or promote northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) nesting-roosting habitat. In addition, the BLM manages LSRs to: 1) enable forests to recover from past management measures, 2) respond to climate-driven stresses, wildfire and other disturbance events, 3) ensure positive or neutral ecological impacts from wildfire, and 4) contribute to northern spotted owl recovery.

How is BLM protecting large, fire resilient trees in the Late Mungers Project Area?

Late Mungers is designed to protect and culture large, old trees. The project protects large trees by removing adjacent trees and fuels. Clumps of fire tolerant legacy trees would be retained. Conifer trees (pine [Pinus spp.] and Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii] greater than or equal to 36-inches DBH) and hardwoods greater than 24-inches DBH would be retained. In non-conifer plant communities, large conifers and hardwoods (often greater than 24-inches DBH) would be retained. Thinning also creates growing space for the next generation of legacy trees.

FYI, plan watchers….

Open-access paper in Nature Communications, “Fire suppression makes wildfires more severe and accentuates impacts of climate change and fuel accumulation.”

Abstract:

Thanks, Nick Smith, for adding this to your Healthy Forests news roundup today….