Uncategorized

The Property and Environment Research Center has a new report, “Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? How environmental analysis delays fuel treatment projects.” Highlights:

• Fuel treatment projects designed to reduce wildfire risks, including mechanical treatments and prescribed burns, often take longer to implement than other U.S. Forest Service projects because they are more likely to require rigorous environmental review or be litigated.
• Once the Forest Service initiates the environmental review process, it takes ​​an average of 3.6 years to begin a mechanical treatment and 4.7 years to begin a prescribed burn.
• For projects that require environmental impact statements—the most rigorous form of review—the time from initiation to implementation averages 5.3 years for mechanical treatments and 7.2 years for prescribed burns.
• Given the time it takes to conduct environmental reviews and implement fuel treatments, it is unlikely that the Forest Service will be able to achieve its goal of treating an additional 20 million acres over the next 10 years.

Here’s a press release about a lawsuit just filed on an issue that has been discussed and debated here on this blog for a number of years now. If you have any specific questions about the lawsuit, a copy of the complaint is linked below. The press release also lists email addresses and phone numbers for the groups involved, as well as the attorney. People are encouraged to reach out to them directly. However, in keeping with the spirit of this blog, some people are welcome to continue attacking me for posting a press release or offering up a bunch of conspiracy theories about why environmental groups want to protect larger trees on public lands (and we can pretend that environmental groups haven’t been trying to do that for many decades). Thanks. – mk

Pendleton, Oregon—Six conservation groups filed a lawsuit today challenging a Trump-era rule change that allows logging of mature and old growth forests on no less than 7 million acres across Eastern Oregon and Washington. The coalition filed its suit over the Forest Service’s decision to eliminate a provision of the Eastside Screens that prohibited the logging of trees larger than 21” in diameter.

The Eastside Screens were initially put in place by the Forest Service to protect remaining habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife; certain species were in rapid decline after decades of logging of the biggest trees in Eastern Oregon and Washington’s national forests. For more than 20 years, the Screens reined in the removal of large trees and prevented unnecessary conflict on many logging projects.

However, in the final days of the Trump administration, the Forest Service removed the long-standing protection for at least 11,000 square miles of national forest in Eastern Oregon and Southeast Washington despite overwhelming evidence that large trees play a critical role in maintaining biodiversity and mitigating climate change. The amendment has been criticized for being a politically-motivated action that circumvented public and tribal involvement and ignored an established and growing body of science that contradicts the decision.

The complaint alleges that the decision violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The groups also notified the agency of their intent to enforce Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for fish and wildlife that depend on older forests.

“It’s no surprise the Trump administration ignored the science when it pushed this rule change through on its way out the door. Cutting down the remaining big trees harms salmon, steelhead, and bull trout by removing shade and forest cover that keeps rivers and streams cool,” explained Chris Krupp with WildEarth Guardians.

While the decision to eliminate the prohibition on logging trees larger than 21” in diameter was made with little attention to the effects on fish and wildlife that rely on these forests, it also curtailed public involvement in the rulemaking process; it ignored the opinion of over 115 independent scientists, former agency leadership, and dozens of conservation, climate, Indigenous, and other organizations.

“Large trees play a critical role in supporting biodiversity, clean water, and native fish. It is important to retain all remaining large trees as they are scarce on the landscape after a century of high-grade timber harvests that targeted large, old trees,” said Amy Stuart with the Great Old Broads for Wilderness.

A recent scientific study found that the biggest and oldest trees covered by the rule make up only 3% of regional forests in the Pacific Northwest yet store 42% of forest carbon. They also provide critical habitat for wildlife, keep water clean and cold, are resilient to wildfire, and are at the core of cultural values.

“The Forest Service violated its legal duty to protect wildlife and forest health when it removed protections for our biggest, fire-resistant trees. Now that these trees are being logged across six national forests, we are asking the court to halt this tragedy,” said Rory Isbell with Central Oregon LandWatch.

In addition, President Biden recently issued Executive Order (EO 14072, April 22), which aims to “conserve America’s mature and old-growth forests on Federal lands” as a part of a science-based approach to reduce wildfire risk and combat the climate and biodiversity crisis.

“We are facing a climate and biodiversity crisis, but the Forest Service continues to move in exactly the wrong direction. We are asking the Biden administration to take action consistent with its recent Executive Order and restore bedrock protections for mature and old growth forests on our public land,” said Rob Klavins, public lands advocate for Oregon Wild based in rural Wallowa County.

The groups ask that the current administration restore protections for large trees in our national forests to support wildlife, clean water, and carbon storage on public lands. They also ask Senators Wyden and Merkley to support mature and old growth protections in the State of Oregon.

Greater Hells Canyon Council, Oregon Wild, Central Oregon LandWatch, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, WildEarth Guardians, and the Sierra Club are represented by Crag Law Center attorneys Meriel Darzen and Oliver Stiefel.

For more information, see the FAQs; for maps and photos, see the Press Folder.

From PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility):

Our friends at Western Watersheds Project make an important observation about the connection between the January 6th insurrectionists and the small but vocal and violent groups associated with western livestock industry extremists. These extreme groups continue to mobilize against public lands and conservation efforts. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans, including those out west, support public lands and the agencies that manage our public lands.

From an E&E News article (behind paywall) today: “The Forest Service is working out the final details of a plan to keep South Dakota timber mills open by supplying logs from other areas, agency Chief Randy Moore said.” The “other areas” may include California, which is concurrently proposing the largest logging projects in state history.

Back in the good old days, the Forest Service sold timber to the highest bidder. Exceptions to that rule included a small handful of Sustained Yield Units. These were anti-competitive, protectionist measures designed to ensure that timber was milled locally. Now the Forest Service wants to do precisely the opposite — require that timber be milled far distant from the area in which it grows.

How many tax dollars will be spent on this boondoggle? This administration won’t care; in fact, I doubt it even asked the question. With hundreds of millions sloshing around in the FS’s budget accounts there’s enough to finance any crazy idea.

In other news, the “biggest” of three fires in Alaska has burned “about 0.06 square mile,” according to the Associated Press (quoting Alaska Division of Forestry spokesperson Sam Harrel). The two smaller fires have burned one and five acres, respectively.

For the numerically challenged, 0.06 of a square mile = 38.4 acres.

PS: A “barn” is a unit of area equal to 10⁻²⁸m². You’re welcome.

News article from Nature. Many foresters knew this, but research backs us up.

Indigenous knowledge reveals history of fire-prone California forest

A collaboration between scientists and Native American tribes finds tree density in parts of the Klamath Mountains is at a record high, and at risk of serious wildfires

“Combining multiple lines of evidence, Knight and her team show that the tree density in this region of Klamath Mountains started to increase as the area was colonized, partly because the European settlers prevented Indigenous peoples from practising cultural burning. In the twentieth century, total fire suppression became a standard management practice, and fires of any kind were extinguished or prevented — although controlled burns are currently used in forest management. The team reports that in some areas, the tree density is higher than it has been for thousands of years, owing in part to fire suppression.”

This is based on a PNAS paper here:

The following guest post was written by WildEarth Guardians’ John Horning. – mk

I once looked at a map showing the United States at night. Lights lit up the coasts and our massive cities across the hinterlands. Though my eyes were attracted to the energy of the lights, they eventually settled on the blank spots on the map.

One of those large, blank spots was the Greater Gila of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona, which is home to some of the last, best, wild—but still largely unprotected—public lands in the continental United States.

It’s also home to the Gila Wilderness—America’s first designated wilderness.

We celebrate the Greater Gila on this day because 98 years ago, on June 3, 1924 the U.S. Forest Service did something quite remarkable. Based on ancient and emerging wisdom at the time, it chose to exercise restraint and allow wild country to be wild.

We chose to celebrate the Gila and its looming centennial by creating an anthology of essays that capture why the Greater Gila is so loved and so deserving of even stronger protection. First & Wildest: The Gila Wilderness at 100 has been a great collaboration between Guardians, Torrey House Press, our editor Elizabeth Hightower Allen, and the many inspired writers who love the Gila.

I encourage you to order a copy of the book right here. And as a bonus, Torrey House Press is generously donating 20% of all book sales to WildEarth Guardians through June 10. Just use promo code “WILD” at checkout. Need more inspiration? Watch this film trailer that captures the spirit of the book.

If the Greater Gila is to endure, and life as we know it is to survive the compounding climate and biodiversity crises, we must continue to think boldly, celebrate wildly, and collaborate deeply.

If you love the Greater Gila—or want to fall in love with the Greater Gila for the first time—please buy the book and then join Guardians’ campaign to protect all that we love.

John Horning is the executive director of WildEarth Guardians. He writes from Santa Fe. 

These settlement agreements resolve lawsuits over the leasing of nearly 4 million acres of federal public lands across Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming to the oil and gas industry.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In response to lawsuits filed by WildEarth Guardians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Western Environmental Law Center, the Biden administration will review and reconsider decisions to sell nearly 4 million acres of public lands oil and gas leases as part of three settlement agreements upheld by a federal judge this week.

“This is a big win for the climate and a real test to see if the Biden administration is going to get serious about confronting the climate impacts of selling public lands for fracking,” said Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program director for WildEarth Guardians. “With the oil and gas industry bent on despoiling America’s public lands and fueling the climate crisis, this is a critical opportunity for the Biden administration to chart a new path toward clean energy and independence from fossil fuels.”

Between 2016 and 2021, the groups filed lawsuits challenging the sale of millions of acres of public lands for fracking in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

The suits targeted the failure of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management to address the climate implications of leasing oil and gas, which conveys a right for companies to extract and pollute. In an order late yesterday, Judge Rudolph Contreras dismissed the cases, upholding the settlements and rejecting industry attempts to derail the agreements.

“This suite of cases has entirely recast the federal government’s obligation to consider the cumulative climate impacts of oil and gas leasing on public lands,” said Kyle Tisdel, senior attorney and Climate and Energy Program director for the Western Environmental Law Center. “The incompatibility of continued fossil fuel exploitation with a livable planet is crystal clear. These settlements represent a fundamental opportunity for the Biden administration to align federal action with this climate reality and to keep its promise to present and future generations.”

Fossil fuels extracted from public lands and waters, including coal, oil, and gas, are responsible for more than 900 million metric tons of climate pollution, equal to the emissions from nearly 200 million vehicles. As these fossil fuels are produced and consumed, the emissions account for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gases released in U.S.

Together, oil and gas extracted from public lands and waters account for nearly 10% of all climate pollution released in the U.S.

“Our settlements give new hope that we can more effectively confront the climate crisis and protect our health from oil and gas extraction,” said Barbara Gottlieb, director of Environment & Health at Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Given how dangerously greenhouse gas levels are rising, it’s critical that the Biden administration put the brakes on fracking and speed up the transition away from fossil fuels.”

Scientists have warned that to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis, oil, gas, and coal production must rapidly decrease worldwide, and ultimately end. In spite of this dire warning, the federal government has for years rubber-stamped more oil and gas leasing, locking in more greenhouse gas emissions. Most of this leasing has involved public lands in the western U.S.

The groups’ agreements provide new hope that the Biden administration will change course from previous federal administrations. President Biden already ordered a pause on new oil and gas leasing as part of an executive order tackling the climate crisis. Although this pause was halted by a federal judge, the administration has appealed this ruling.

In 2016, the groups filed suit challenging the sale of nearly 460,000 acres of public lands oil and gas leases in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C., the case was the first to target the failure of Interior to address the nationwide climate impacts of its oil and gas leasing program.

In 2019, Judge Contreras ruled in favor of the groups. In the landmark ruling, Judge Contreras chided the federal government for ignoring the cumulative climate implications of oil and gas leasing.

Following this ruling, the groups again filed suit in 2020, challenging nearly 2 million acres of oil and gas leases in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Interior ultimately conceded defeat in late 2020 over most of the leasing. Shortly after, Judge Contreras issued another ruling in favor of the groups over the federal government’s failure to respond to his original order on remand.

In January 2021, right before President Biden assumed office, the groups again filed suit challenging the sale of more than 1 million acres of oil and gas leases in the western U.S.

The settlements resolve the three lawsuits, committing the Biden administration to address the climate implications of oil and gas leasing and reconsider past decisions. Citing the agreements, Judge Contreras today dismissed the three lawsuits.

This open-access paper provides more science that supports thinning projects. As important as the findings are, it’s common sense that thinning is a positive: Fewer trees competing for water = more water in soils and watersheds. Granted, this study looked at conditions during an unprecedented drought in 2021. The principles apply during average summers, too, in arid regions. What’s more, thinning reduces competition for light and nutrients.

I asked Peter to reflect on what trust means and how it can be improved. He generously contributed this series; this is the first of three parts. Thank you, Peter!

Sharon and I, along with several other folks, have been sharingideas about trust for some time here, especially recently and often around issues of wildland fire and prescribed burning. The main reason is, when it comes to public land management and natural resource management these days, many might say that trust is the coin of the realm. And, today, especially with wildland fire, stakes are getting higher and that coin is getting more valuable.

What do we mean by coin here?  Well, when you have trust, you can get things done that might not otherwise be possible, you have earned trust that is like capital you can spend.  When you don’t have it, it’s like having a deficit, a lack of capital.  Even little things can take a big investment, often of other types of power but also often of real money, real capital.  

Chief Moore recently ordered a pause on prescribed fires of USFS managed lands in part because of a loss of confidence, very related to trust (see TSW discussion HERE). Even much smaller, very local issues are often driven by trust or its absence. 

But trust is one of those words, like power.  We all think we know what it means, at least in some basic way.  The more I look at it, though, the more convinced I am that trust has more depth and nuance as a concept than many of us realize.  Perhaps more importantly, there are those pesky questions about how to build trust, how to keep it, how to work with it so it grows as part of a virtuous cycle and doesn’t become part of a viciousone. 

I’ve found it helpful to look at trust in two ways.  One is psychological because trust starts with individuals and is very personal.  The other is sociological because trust works in verysocial ways.  This article will focus on the psychological aspects and a second one will talk about the more sociological aspects.  A final third article will try to tie some of these threads together in a discussion about building, keeping, and working with trust and with the understanding of trust suggested in the first two articles.

Psychologically, trust is often understood as having three interrelated aspects: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral.  Cognitively, trust is based on what you think you know about a person or organization, a cognitive understanding of something that has happened in the past.  Cognition, then, is the thinking, rational part of trust, the perception part. 

Trust also is based on how you respond emotionally to what you think you know, like when you commit emotionally to what you believe about how a person or organization will behave in the future.  Confidence in future behavior is a form of emotional trust.  In a sense, emotion is the belief and feeling part of trust, what you feel or believe because of what you perceive. 

Lastly, trust is also based in how a person behaves in response to what they feel and think, in response to emotion and cognition. In this sense, trust doesn’t exist unless someone is willing to act or behave in a trusting manner, unless there is a manifestation. Behavior, then, is the action part of trust, how you behave in response to what you perceive and feel. 

Seeing trust as having these three psychological aspects—what you think, what you believe, and how you act—is helpful for at least two main reasons.  First, it suggests that each informs the others, so understanding and thinking about all three is important.  For example, if someone behaves like they trust you, you can assume they know or believe something good about your past behavior and are willing to believe your future behavior also will be good, however they might define good.  Similarly, whether you perceive or think someone’s behavior is trustworthy is typically informed by what you believe or feel about that person, their organization, their community. 

Second, this understanding of trust also suggests severalapproaches to building trust and an advantage to pursuing thosesimultaneously.  To build trust, for example, you can behave in trustworthy ways others can experience and, thus, establish a cognitive basis for them to trust you.  You might also appeal to someone on an emotional level, in a sense inviting them to see your behavior as trustworthy. And you can invite behavior from them that will build trust in others, that will encourage others to trust them.

Something to think about too is the relationship between trust and perceptions of risk.  To build trust, for example, behaving in trustworthy ways often means behaving in ways that allow others to feel less at risk, less exposed.  But what does that look like?  

The key, it would seem, is to have some reasonable understanding—even if just a reasonable guess—of what makesthose folks feel at risk, what makes them feel vulnerable.  For wildland fire, is it risk of property loss?  Perhaps its risk tohealth or even personal safety.  It also could be risk tocommunity, a loss of identity of some sort.  Maybe it’s a loss of control. And these possible risks are typically related to each other, meaning it’s important to think about a range of plausible perceptions of risk, as opposed to worrying about which are most shared or some measure like that.

So, this look at a way to understand trust from a psychological perspective gives us some ideas for how to build trust. Yet, trust is also very social, which is what we’ll look at next.