The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views
Community Sourced, Shared and Supported
Thanks to Nick Smith for this link to a Sierra Nevada Conservancy page.
“Forest restoration and wildfire risk reduction projects are complex, involving many steps and moving parts that determine whether a project will succeed and how long it will take. In the infographic below, we take a look under the hood of forest restoration projects to understand each of the steps necessary to get a project on the ground and through completion.”
Today, a group of prominent scientists—including the former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—released a new scientific study “envisioning a bold and science-based rewilding of publicly owned federal lands in the American West.”
Their “rewilding call is grounded in ecological science and is necessary regardless of changing political winds. Our objective is to follow up on President Biden’s vision to conserve, connect, and restore by identifying a large reserve network in the American West suitable for rewilding two keystone species, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) and the North American beaver (Castor canadensis).”
Below is a press release conservation groups issued hailing the scientists’ western rewilding blueprint.
UPDATE: 30+ pages of supplemental material in support of the scientific study is also available here.
HAILEY, IDAHO—Conservationists today hailed a new scientific study that identifies an ambitious network of protected areas, with wolf and beaver restoration as a centerpiece, as a sound strategy for restoring native ecosystems and wildlife diversity on western public lands. The benefits of this proposal would contribute significantly to stream restoration and help mitigate drought, wildfires, and climate change. The study uses scientific modeling to identify eleven large-scale reserves, then identified connectivity habitats to allow the dispersal of native species among the Western Rewilding Network.
“This scientific blueprint for large landscape conservation, and its focus on retiring public land livestock operations and restoring wolves and beavers is a major call to action for policymakers in Congress and the administration,” said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist and Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project. “The ecological success of Yellowstone National Park shows that this combination restores biodiversity, and replicating this success across the West is an enterprise well worth our collective efforts.”
Of the 92 threatened and endangered species encompassed by the proposed rewilding network, the scientists analyzed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service findings finding that commercial uses of public lands were major contributors to species endangerment. Livestock grazing is the most common threat, imperiling 48% of the species, followed by mining (22%), logging (18%), and oil and gas drilling (11%).
“Rewilding can bring us real wolf recovery in the West – it’s no longer a pipe dream,” said Kristen Boyles, managing attorney at Earthjustice. “Climate change adds even more stress to wild places, and scientific visions like this show us a path toward rebuilding our natural heritage.”
Changing the management in the proposed reserve network will enable restoration of these essential ecosystems including, importantly, drought mitigation. Specifically, the recommendations call for retiring livestock grazing allotments, and restoring gray wolf and beaver populations.
“History has shown us that, over time, rewilding efforts, protection, and restraint can restore wounded landscapes,” said Maggie Howell, Executive Director of Wolf Conservation Center. “Letting beavers and wolves do their essential work is an effective way to unleash nature’s self-healing powers to reestablish vital ecological processes and make the land and its creatures resilient in a time of climatological stress.”
The study cites the restoration of streams and riparian systems, amelioration of altered fire regimes, and climate mitigation through increased carbon storage as collateral benefits of implementing the reserve design and its recommended protections. Aspen woodlands, which support an elevated diversity of native species – but are presently in decline – would be a key beneficiary of the plan.
“This study makes it crystal clear that it’s time to fully invite nature back to America’s public lands,” said Randi Spivak, Public Lands Program Director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we are to succeed in conserving 30% of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030, the recommendations by these authors are necessary steps to saving life on earth”
The paper’s authors justified the prescription of significant changes in land and wildlife management in the reserves because “we believe that ultra ambitious action is required.” They cited drought, changing temperatures, massive fires, and biodiversity loss as key ecological crises facing western ecosystems.
The scientists consider this network a natural complement to a Sagebrush Sea conservation proposal, and found that the two networks, if fully implemented, could protect a combined 22% of western states. If strongly protected, these lands could be counted toward the 30% by 2030 goal articulated by the Biden administration under their ‘America the Beautiful’ initiative.
“This paper is a roadmap for the Biden administration to turn aspirational words about protecting 30% of U.S. land and water by 2030 into meaningful action,” said Sarah McMillan, Senior Adviser at WildEarth Guardians. “The colliding extinction crisis and the climate emergency demand bold action. With logging, mining, oil and gas drilling, and livestock grazing remaining a significant threat to federal public lands, we must stop this endless resource exploitation and start conserving, reconnecting, and restoring at a landscape scale. The ecological and economic benefits of the rewilding plan presented in this paper would be significant, and would accumulate over time, as riparian areas, clean water, and biodiversity are restored and climate change is mitigated through increased carbon storage.”
Folks, here’s the Forestry section of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Apologies for the formatting. I cut and pasted this from the text of the act. The full text is here. Note the definition of hazardous fuels reduction project….
Subtitle D—Forestry
SEC. 23001. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM RESTORATION AND FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to amounts other wise available, there are appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to remain available until September 30, 2031—
(1) $1,800,000,000 for hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System land within the wildland-urban interface;
(2) $200,000,000 for vegetation management projects on National Forest System land carried out in accordance with a plan developed under section 303(d)(1) or 304(a)(3) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6542(d)(1) or 6543(a)(3));
(3) $100,000,000 to provide for environmental reviews by the Chief of the Forest Service in satisfying the obligations of the Chief of the Forest Service under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–12); and
(4) $50,000,000 for the protection of old-growth forests on National Forest System land and to complete an inventory of old-growth forests and mature forests within the National Forest System.
(b) RESTRICTIONS.—None of the funds made available by paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) may be used for any activity—
(1) conducted in a wilderness area or wilderness study area;
(2) that includes the construction of a permanent road or motorized trail;
(3) that includes the construction of a temporary road, except in the case of a temporary road that is decommissioned by the Secretary not later
than 3 years after the earlier of—
(A) the date on which the temporary road is no longer needed; and
(B) the date on which the project for which the temporary road was constructed is completed;
(4) inconsistent with the applicable land management plan;
(5) inconsistent with the prohibitions of the rule of the Forest Service entitled ‘‘Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation’’ (66 Fed. Reg. 3244 (January 12, 2001)), as modified by subparts C and D of part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations; or
(6) carried out on any land that is not National Forest System land, including other forested land on Federal, State, Tribal, or private land.
…
(3) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION
22 PROJECT.—The term ‘‘hazardous fuels reduction project’’ means an activity, including the use of prescribed fire, to protect structures and communities from wildfire that is carried out on National Forest System land.
The Wilderness Society says:
On July 29, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5118, The Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act. H.R. 5118 is a package of nearly 50 bills aimed at curbing wildfire and drought and improving forest management. The Wilderness Society applauds the inclusion of the Roadless Area Conservation Act in the package.
The Roadless Area Conservation Act would codify the 2001 Roadless Rule, and would provide permanent protection for inventoried roadless areas in the National Forest System by barring the construction and development of roads, timber harvesting and other development.
I looked at the text of the bill and found this:
The Secretary of Agriculture shall not authorize road construction, road reconstruction, or the cutting, sale, or removal of timber on National Forest System lands subject to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as published on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3243) except as provided in—
(1) subpart B of part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 12, 2001);
(2) subpart C of part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on October 16, 2008 for Idaho); and
(3) subpart D of part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as provided for Colorado on July 3, 2012 and December 19, 2016).
The bill was sent to the Senate, where my guess is it’ll die.
“Climate forests”? Nice idea, but…. see this article in Phys.org is here. Excerpt:
Researchers “found that the estimated carbon losses from wildfires within the offset program’s first 10 years have depleted at least 95% of the contributions set aside to protect against all fire risks over 100 years. Likewise, the potential carbon losses associated with a single disease and its impacts on a single species are large enough to fully hinder the total credits set aside for all disease- and insect-related mortality over 100 years.
“In just 10 years, wildfires have exhausted protections designed to last for a century. It is incredibly unlikely that the program will be able to withstand the wildfires of the next 90 years, particularly given the role of the climate crisis in exacerbating fire risks,” said co-author Dr. Oriana Chegwidden, of CarbonPlan.
From the San Diego Union-Tribune. Mentions the Save Our Sequoias Act, which “would provide $350 million in federal funding over 10 years to help thin, manage and fire-proof forests and protect trees by streamlining environmental reviews of efforts to restore the health of sequoia groves — reviews that now could take 52 years to treat the 19 most at-risk groves.”
Unfortunately, dozens of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters oppose it. They view any weakening of environmental rules affecting forests the same way the National Rifle Association views any weakening of gun rights: as the start of a slippery slope that ends with disaster, in this case loggers ravaging pristine natural areas. Local Sierra Club chapter chair Lisa Ross asserts the bill was introduced on “behalf of a panoply of special interests hoping to bring more commercial development into our national forests.”
Subhead: “It’s a shabby tactic to pretend thinning forests to protect historic trees is the same thing as inviting loggers to despoil pristine natural lands.”
New York Times today: “At Yosemite, a Preservation Plan That Calls for Chain Saws: With treasured forests perennially threatened by fierce wildfires, many experts say it’s time to cut and burn protectively. A lawsuit is standing in the way.” It’s subscription only, unfortunately. Excerpts:
A judge this month temporarily halted the park’s biomass removal efforts, as the tree cutting was euphemistically known, in response to a lawsuit filed by an environmental group based in Berkeley, Calif., that argues that the park did not properly review the impacts. The thinning project covers less than 1 percent of Yosemite’s forests.
Whether or not the lawsuit proves successful, it is resonating well outside of the park’s boundaries by raising larger questions about how to manage forests in the age of climate change.
Increasingly, leading forestry experts are propounding a view dissonant to a public accustomed to the idea of preserving the country’s wild lands: Sometimes you have to cut trees to save trees. And burn forests to save forests, they say.
The polarization during the Trump administration between climate scientists and a president who downplayed rising temperatures and stressed the need for greater forest management, or “raking” as former President Donald J. Trump once called it, has passed for now. It has given way to what many experts say is a consensus among scientists and political leaders on the need to thin and burn forests more proactively.
“Most of us are absolutely convinced that this is not only a good thing to do, but is absolutely necessary,” said John Battles, a professor of forest ecology at the University of California, Berkeley, and a science adviser to the California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force.
…
About a century ago, the National Park Service, which manages Yosemite, effectively made a promise to the American people that it would keep valued places looking “more or less like they always did,” said Nate Stephenson, a scientist emeritus in forest ecology for the United States Geological Survey. The act of Congress that established the National Park Service in 1916 called on parks to remain “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
But, Dr. Stephenson added, “in this era of rapid and intense environmental changes, that promise is falling apart.”
Central to the thinking of scientists looking for ways to protect forests is research showing that the “natural state” of America’s wild lands was for millenniums influenced by humankind.
Decades of research have shown that the wilderness appreciated by early European settlers, as well as 19th century naturalists like John Muir, was often a highly managed landscape. Core samples from beneath a pond in Yosemite, retrieved in the way that scientists might bore deep into a glacier, showed centuries of layers of pollen and ash. The findings suggested a long history of frequent fires in Yosemite and buttressed the oral histories of Native American tribes who have long seen fire as a tool.
…
“Not all trees are good and not all fire is bad,” said Britta Dyer, a forest regeneration specialist at American Forests, a nonprofit organization that promotes the use of forests to slow climate change.
…
In the iconic Yosemite Valley, with its glacier-carved granite walls, vertiginous waterfalls and flowering meadows, Garrett Dickman, a forest ecologist at the park, is leading an effort to restore the area to what it looked like more than a century ago, when it was sculpted by native burning practices.
Mr. Dickman uses some of the earliest photographs and paintings of the valley to guide him in deciding whether trees need to be felled.
Photos by Carleton Watkins in the 1860s were viewed by Abraham Lincoln and helped convince the president of the need to declare Yosemite a protected public trust, a prelude to it becoming a national park. Mr. Dickman uses the same photos today.
“I will quite literally take the photo and look at where I think the view is and mark the trees that I think need to be removed to restore the vista,” Mr. Dickman said.
Live trees that are thicker than 20 inches are never felled, Mr. Dickman said. He has calculated that if he cannot wrap his arms around a tree it usually is too large to qualify for cutting.
…
Dr. [Chad] Hanson, who is well known among conservationists and loggers for the frequency of his lawsuits, takes a more conservative view.
One of his main arguments is that a heavily thinned forest is more vulnerable to fire, not less, because the cooling shade of the canopy is reduced, as is the windbreak. Other experts say that while cutting down trees can in theory create drier, windier conditions, forests in the West are already very dry for much of the fire season. They also say that even if wind speeds do increase, it is rarely enough to overcome the benefits of having reduced the amount of vegetation that can burn.
Dr. Hanson agrees that within 100 feet of homes, selectively thinning seedlings and saplings, and even removing lower limbs on mature trees, is essential to create “defensible space.” But he argues that instead of lopping down large trees, forest managers should allow more wild land fires to progress naturally.
“Natural processes are meant to be the primary approach,” Dr. Hanson said. “Not chain saws and bulldozers and clear cuts.”
A number of environmental groups, however, counter that they support careful forest thinning, including Save the Redwoods League, a group that advocates for preserving redwood and giant sequoia forests, and the Nature Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit.
Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Nature Conservancy, said it was “exhausting” having to confront Dr. Hanson’s flurry of arguments and litigation. He added, “It is a waste of time.” Other experts have published critiques of Dr. Hanson’s methodology.
A reader of The Smokey Wire wrote me the other day to point out that the Santa Fe, New Mexico County Commission unanimously passed the resolution below concerning the Santa Fe Mountains Project and fuels treatment projects in the Santa Fe National Forest in general.
According to TSW reader, in addition to urging the completion of an EIS for the Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project, the resolution recommends the utilization of a broad range of current science into project planning and analysis, and to consider alternatives to the current project plan.
For more information, folks may want to check out this article in Wildfire Today titled “County Commissioners urge USFS to conduct EIS on 50,000-acre fuel treatment project in New Mexico.”
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SANTA FE COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – _______
Introduced by:
Commissioner Anna Hansen and Commissioner Anna T. Hamilton
A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE (USFS) TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ON THE SANTA FE MOUNTAINS LANDSCAPE RESILIENCY PROJECT; TO REQUEST NEW RISK, COSTS, AND BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF USFS FOREST FUELS TREATMENTS ON THE SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST INCLUDING THEIR RISK TO NEW MEXICO HEALTH, WATER SUPPLIES AND ECONOMIES; TO PUBLICLY ASSESS USE OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS UNDER ACCELERATING CLIMATE CHANGE; AND TO REQUEST THAT THE USFS CEASE INTENTIONAL BURNS IN SANTA FE COUNTY UNTIL THESE PUBLIC REVIEWS
WHEREAS, the Santa Fe National Forest (SFNF), United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), issued a draft Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on analysis in an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project (SFMLRP) to conduct extensive ground disturbing activities in forests east of Santa Fe in March 2022; and
WHEREAS, The DN and FONSI for the Project selected Alternative 2 which calls for cutting and intentional burning of vegetation on 38,680 acres across a 50,566-acre project area over the next 10 to 15 years (all areas would be treated multiple times); and
WHEREAS, this area and the entire SFNF provide recreation and outdoor enjoyment to more than 100,000 Santa Fe County residents and thousands of visitors each year and is home to the Santa Fe Ski Basin, Hyde Memorial State Park, portions of the Pecos Wilderness and Tesuque and Nambe Pueblos, extensive inventoried roadless areas and high value habitat for breeding birds and other wildlife; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners (Board)
passed Resolution No. 2019-53, on April 4, 2019, encouraging the USFS to conduct a comprehensive and objective analysis for the SFMLRP; provide effective notice to the public including presentations in downtown Santa Fe, NM; and incorporate a broad range of forest and fire ecology research before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, the Board passed Resolution No. 2010-110 on June 29, 2010, in support of Wilderness designation for Inventoried Roadless Areas adjacent to the Pecos Wilderness that will be impacted by the SFMLRP and other SFNF projects; and
WHEREAS, National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), often described as the United States Magna Carta for the environment, helps public officials make decisions based on comprehensively understanding environmental consequences before actions are taken and mandating, to the fullest extent possible, citizen involvement in such decisions; and
WHEREAS, NEPA requires analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the SFMLRP on a variety of resources, including the risks of intentional burning on national forest lands bordering private property and impacts to air quality and public health, threatened and endangered species, inventoried roadless areas, water quality, soils, vegetation and wildlife; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the Chief of the USFS (Chief) called for a review of the Hermit’s Peak Fire (Chief’s Review) which was a consequence of the escaped Las Dispensas intentional burn on the Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District of the Santa Fe National Forest; and
WHEREAS, the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire has destroyed at least 400 homes, forced up to 18,000 people to evacuate their properties, cost more than $248 million in firefighting expenses and burned more than 341,000 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Chief’s Review found that megadrought and climate disruption are presenting unforeseen challenges to the planning and executing of intentional burns; and
WHEREAS, USFS will undertake thousands of acres of intentional burns per year similarly endangering Santa Fe County this fall, adjacent to densely populated areas, without substantive changes to their (flawed) methods, use of personnel, or strategy for climate change; and
WHEREAS, neither the Chief’s Review, nor other communications, analysis, or strategies by the USFS on the SFNF, specifically re-evaluates the viability of SFNF projects and plan of forest treatments given extreme drought and accelerating climate change; and
WHEREAS, the growth of grasses and other fine fuels following fuel reduction activities, together with debris generated by fireline construction, contributes to increased fire risk; and
WHEREAS, unacceptable risks are taken by personnel conducting planned burns because they are pressured to “accomplish the mission”; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate because the EA for the SFMLRP did not disclose or analyze the significant impacts to resources of an escaped intentional burn resulting from global heating and increased fine fuels produced by management and bureaucratic pressure to meet targets; and
WHEREAS, the risks and impacts of escaped intentional burns were not identified in the EA for the SFMLRP or other SFNF projects, although the issue was raised in public comments.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County hereby:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County requests that the County Manager forward this Resolution to the United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development Xochitl Torres Small, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management Director, the U.S. Forest Service National Director, New Mexico’s Senators and Representatives in Congress, the New Mexico Governor, and State Senators and Representatives in the New Mexico Legislature representing Santa Fe County and Counties in the Sangre de Cristo Mountain Range (The Santa Fe National Forest).
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SANTA FE COUNTY
By: ___________________________ Anna T. Hamilton, Chair
After fires in 2020 and 2021, the Forest Service’s California region bit off more than it could chew when it proposed to log “hazard” (sic) trees along 5,800 miles of forest roads. Now the regional office has asked the Chief for an emergency exemption from NEPA review for 167 miles of its roadside logging. Why? “Because “project planning and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation is taking longer than anticipated.” The Chief granted the exemption yesterday.
Who could have known that the Forest Service’s largest logging project in its history might take “longer than anticipated?”
PS: The FS claims these fire-affected trees are “hazardous” because “within the last 10 years, the Forest Service has documented 69 claims against the government of property damage, 11 injuries, and four fatalities in the western regions associated with falling trees/limbs.” There’s no evidence that these damage claims are associated with fire-affected or dead trees. Most tree-related injuries result from live, green trees falling. That’s because most trees that fall are live and green when they keel over.
An essay from The Conversation, “A case for retreat in the age of fire.”
“It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.”