Uncategorized

I ran across this NPR story about possibly moving USDA Agencies NIFA and ERS out of the Washington D.C. area. I think it’s altogether possible to critique initiatives without hyperbole e.g. “hostility toward science” but the more intense the expression, the more likely to be quoted, I guess.

Many Forest Service folks may not be familiar with NIFA and their forest research programs. This seems like a good time to highlight their work. See this link.

It’s interesting that this article fits the story into the idea box (I guess it’s maybe a “trope” ) of “the war on science.”  Since I am a former employee of NIFA (when it was known as CSREES) I’d like to give two arguments for why the move might be “good for science.” I’ll stick to NIFA and leave it to your own consideration whether my arguments might apply to ERS.

I don’t know how many of you have tried to hire people for positions in DC. It’s not always easy.  I’ve tried to hire scientists for the FS and for NIFA, and also NEPA folks in the Forest Service.

First, you can get better employees and they may well be happier in their location. If we use the idea recently discussed about fire folks, that “people should lead what they know”, then we would want folks from the land grants to work at NIFA.  Now consider the kinds of towns that have 1860, 1890, and 1994 land grant universities and other affiliated institutions (check out the map above). The cost of living is lower.  They are not crowded (or not relatively compared to DC). The public schools tend to be better.  I spent 14 lovely years in D.C., but most people from a land grant university town may well not want to move their families there.  Why did I get a job with NIFA? I wanted a promotion and had the qualifications. I was not the “best candidate” by any means, but I was already in DC , so found myself in a pretty shallow applicant pool.

But many in the research community said efficiency isn’t driving the move. It’s hostility toward science.

“I think that moving the agencies out of D.C. is going to significantly dilute their effectiveness as well as their relevance,” says Ricardo Salvador, who is the Director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The plan is to leave some folks in DC according to these stories. In terms of NIFA, when I worked there, my office was in a rented building near the L’Enfant Plaza Metro. Honestly, I could have been anywhere. I traveled to review university programs, but I never visited the Congress nor I don’t think anyone in the “head shed” as we called the USDA building (until I was called on the carpet, but that’s another story). We were absolutely outward looking to where the work was and the communities we served (research, education and extension), so it’s a peculiar argument that folks with jobs like I had “need” to be in DC to be “effective” and “relevant.”

Second, part of who you are is who you hang with at work, and who you talk to, which papers you read or what people are discussing on your Nextdoor app, and so on. With people at the agency in DC and also elsewhere, you’d get more diverse perspectives within your workforce. It seems to me that you can argue it either way.. one way is that locality doesn’t make any difference because we all consume the same media and are all interconnected via teaming apps, (so why not move to somewhere cheaper? ) or locality does matter, and so you should be near the people you serve or study.

Now if I were Secretary, I would not move people against their will because it is so disruptive (remember the move to Albuquerque Service Center?) and you might lose precisely those employees you want to keep. I would let those who want to go, go, and let the others be virtual employees- and hire all the new folks at the new site. I bet if the FS had to do the ASQ thing over, they would do it this way.

Here’s a piece on the top three sites.

If we get away from the “war on science” partisan mantra, we can see that there are many arguments why this might be a good idea, and many ways to mitigate negative effects. And IMHO it’s most peculiar that the idea that moving to the Midwest will give us poorer science goes unquestioned at, of all places, Minnesota Public Radio.

This link was in today’s Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities news roundup from Nick Smith

Kevin Mecham: An open letter from a Forest Service Firefighter

“The catalyst of this letter is the line of duty death of friend and co-worker Daniel Laird and the WO and RO’s management of its Forestry Technicians. Our current management structure and its subsequent repercussions on our Firefighting workforce are not new problems. Line of Duty deaths are not new problems. But Dan’s death and the Agency’s structure have shone a glaring light on the implications of our current leadership organization. As these tragedies and issues hit closer and closer to home for the “boots on the ground” it makes the weight feel even heavier. …”

Fire and forests folks, this collection of papers probably has something for every one of us:

Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: ecosystem services and wildfires

For example, “Do Fuel Treatments Reduce Wildfire Suppression Costs and Property Damages? Analysis of Suppression Costs and Property Damages in U.S. National Forests.” Abstract:

This paper reports the results of two hypotheses tests regarding whether fuel reduction treatments using prescribed burning and mechanical methods reduces wildfire suppression costs and property damages. To test these two hypotheses data was collected on fuel treatments, fire suppression costs and property damages associated with wildfires on United States National Forests over a five year period. Results of the multiple regressions show that only in California did mechanical fuel treatment reduce wildfire suppression costs. However, the results of our second hypothesis tests that fuel treatments, by making wildfires less damaging and easier to control, may reduce property damages (i.e., structures—barns, out buildings, etc. and residences lost) seems to be confirmed for acres treated with prescribed burning. In three out of the three geographic regions of the U.S. which experienced significant property losses, prescribed burning lowered the number of structures damaged by wildfire.

According to a report produced in November 2018 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) fossil fuel extraction on U.S. public lands contributes nearly 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

Over the weekend, the levels of the greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere reached their highest levels in human history (going back 800,000 years) as measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

Incredibly, yesterday the Trump administration’s Interior Secretary David Bernhardt – who oversees the fossil fuel on America’s public lands, which account for nearly 25% of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions – told a House Oversight Hearing that “I haven’t lost any sleep over it.”

Bill Gabbert at Wildfire Today posted a few clips from C-Span coverage of Chief Vicki Christiansen’s testimony yesterday before the Senate Appropriations’ Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies subcommittee, (May 15, 2019). In this clip, she answers a question from Sen. Steve Daines on Montana, about creating fuel breaks along USFS roads, esp. in or near WUI zones. Her answer: Yes.

The brief clip is worth a look and listen, but the first thing I noticed is that, of 11 of the 12 seats for subcommittee members that are visible in the opening scene, only one is filled (by Daines). Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was there — she chaired hearing — and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) attended, but they are off camera.

Here’s a relatively balanced news report (video): Chad Hansen is balanced by a USFS district ranger, though Hansen gets more screen time. The “investigative report” focuses on salvage logging, and ties the Camp Fire to past USFS salvaging from a fire 10 years ago. I don’t think it’s so simple — I’ll wait for a detailed report on the conditions that existed before and during the fire.

Who are the 300 scientists? The story doesn’t explain. They may be the ones who signed a letter last year against salvaging.

Federal Govt. Blamed for Faster, More Destructive Wildfires

According to Greenwire today — full text is here. I would have kept the mission statement, or added the new text to it.

Some of the Trump administration’s sharpest critics are crying foul after the Bureau of Land Management excised boilerplate language from its news releases that describes the bureau’s mission as helping conserve public lands for future generations.

Specifically, BLM removed this sentence: “The agency’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

Instead, the boilerplate states the number of acres of federal lands it manages, including 700 million acres of mineral estate.

“Diverse activities authorized on these lands generated $96 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the American economy in fiscal year 2017,” it states. “These activities supported more than 468,000 jobs.”

The original standard language, almost word for word, was still included in the “Our Mission” section of BLM’s website this morning. That section also included a “vision” statement listing the bureau’s goal of enhancing “the quality of life for all citizens through the balanced stewardship of America’s public lands and resources.”

“XPRIZE, the global leader in designing and operating incentive competitions to solve humanity’s grand challenges, has announced a collaboration with California Governor Gavin Newsom, to design an XPRIZE competition that would drive innovation and develop hardware able to rapidly detect and extinguish wildfires.”

My entry:

By Alex Renirie

In this historic year –the first legislative session after the International Panel on Climate Change warned in a special report in late 2018 that we have less than 12 years to make “rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities,” with human-caused CO2 emissions dropping “by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050”– environmental groups in Oregon are up against more challenging odds than ever.

Just weeks into the session, The Oregonian issued a report calling out the state’s political system for its increasingly corrupt campaign finance laws. The four-part series revealed that Oregon’s environmental regulations have been getting weaker for decades while the state has been working its way toward number one in the country for highest corporate campaign contributions per capita. Nowhere is the payoff more obvious than in the strong political ties between the timber industry and state legislators—Oregon is number one for campaign contributions from the timber industry nationally. As a result of this influence, the timber industry remains virtually unregulated in the state, with weaker forest practices standards than any of its neighboring states. And it continues to escape responsibility for its climate impacts. As Center for Sustainable Economy has documented and Oregon State University researchers have confirmed, the timber industry is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state—yet these emissions are completely uncounted and not covered by existing proposed climate legislation.

Thus, it was no surprise that there was pushback when the Oregon Safe Waters Act, sponsored by State Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-HD38) and Karin Power (D-HD41)and the Oregon Forest Carbon Incentives Act, sponsored by State Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-HD38) and Rob Nosse (D-HD42) and State Senator Kathleen Taylor (D-SD21) were formally introduced. Combined, both bills were endorsed by the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network (SEEN), Pacific Rivers, and 50 other partner organizations across the state. Both bills would restrict the environmental, economic and human health impacts of the timber industry and attempt to remedy a serious flaw in existing Oregon law namely: in the face of a changing climate, Oregon should amend its forestry laws to protect vulnerable drinking water sources, incentivize sustainable forestry rather than massive clearcuts, and turn our forests back into carbon sinks, not carbon sources.

The Oregon Forest Carbon Incentives Act, HB 2659, as explained on the SEEN site would mean, “if you’re an Oregon forestland owner, you should not be receiving tax breaks for land that is covered by clearcuts, logging roads, and timber plantations. Taxpayer support should be reserved for owners who maintain healthy forests on their lands and use good practices.” HB 2659 would make receipt of various tax breaks contingent upon the land being covered in actual forests, not dense plantations that are biological deserts, in order to support landowners who choose more sustainable methods to log and leave a climate resilient forest behind.

The Oregon Safe Waters Act (HB 2656) prohibits most chemical spraying and clearcuts in Oregon’s drinking watersheds. On March 12, 2019, the House Committee on Energy and Environment heard HB2656, the Oregon Safe Waters Act. Between supporters and opponents, attendees packed three entire hearing rooms. Over 100 people signed up to give public comment.

From big partners like the Sierra Club’s Oregon chapter and Oregon Wild to smaller community advocacy groups like the dedicated folks at Rockaway Beach Citizens for Watershed Protection, to the Williams Creek Watershed Council and Clatsop Soil & Water Conservation District, we were encouraged to see that Oregonians from all over the state were eager to pass this legislation.

Our panel of experts in support of the HB2656 included SEEN’s Dr. John Talberth, Greg Haller of Pacific Rivers, and Tina Schweickert, former water resources coordinator for the city of Salem. Haller focused on the critical message that the bill was not designed to affect small landowners, despite timber industry claims: The real target of the bill is Wall Street-funded timber companies that don’t care about the community impacts. Talberth focused his testimony on the depletion of water resources in industrially logged areas and the increased risks of fire and toxic algae blooms that unsustainable forestry practices cause. Schweikert highlighted the contamination of Salem’s drinking water by a toxic algae bloom in 2018 and strongly encouraged the committee to take proactive measures to safeguard the entire state’s water supplies.

Oregon Department of Forestry Director Peter Dougherty also testified, largely repeating claims made by industry that water quality in Oregon is safe across the board. He presented research from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality showing that water quality in forestland is the best of any land use type, but upon questioning by Representative Salinas, admitted that not all watersheds were monitored and that he didn’t know how many were represented in the referenced study.

After over an hour of introductions and expert testimony, Committee Chair Ken Helm began a dramatically shortened public comment period, prioritizing those who had traveled the farthest to attend the hearing, while extending the deadline for others to submit comments in writing by several days. Only twelve people of over a hundred that signed up had the chance to give their testimony. Still, we heard from some powerful speakers – citizens of Rockaway Beach demonstrated how clearcutting has decimated their watersheds on the coast, and a small timber owner reminded us that utilizing climate- and water-smart forestry practices is not only possible, but profitable. In opposing comments, we heard nearly identical claims that Oregon’s drinking water is perfectly safe and that the bill would put people out of work. Our opponents seemed largely unaware or uninterested in the proposal’s central intent to proactively protect watersheds from increasing drought, fire, and algal toxicity in the face of a warming climate.

The combination of an extremely shortened public comment session, the one-dimensional arguments from those opposing the bill, and several committee members clearly more interested in asking questions of industry representatives than bill sponsors, made it a frustrating experience overall. Instead of moving the bill to a work group so that concerns could be addressed head on, the committee seemed perfectly willing to submit to the industry’s scare tactics and let the bill die.

At the Forest Carbon Initiatives Act hearing on March 26th, we again were faced with poor scheduling and limited opportunity for public comment. At the last minute, the House Natural Resource Committee switched the hearing date to 8 a.m, two days earlier than previously scheduled. With other bills to address in a tight timeframe, we were once again left with insufficient time even for expert testimony and very limited time for the public to weigh in.

Nevertheless, again, our panel of experts supporting the bill was excellent and emphasized that the timber industry is given extremely favorable treatment in the form of tax breaks and subsidies from our state government. In return for these tax breaks (doled out by Oregon taxpayers), we are left with damaged land at higher risk for flooding, contamination, biodiversity loss, and more rapid climate change. In his slideshow, Talberth presented two photos to demonstrate the point – one of a large clearcut, and one of a healthy forest – and implored legislators to change their minds about which of those forest landowners deserves a tax incentive. If we are serious about tackling climate change and increasing forest carbon sequestration, we should be offering benefits to those who leave healthy forests behind. And doing so would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue for schools, infrastructure, and services to rural counties.

Oregon Department of Forestry Director’s Dougherty again offered predictable testimony opposing the bill, this time explaining that Oregon’s existing forest land tax structures are entirely reasonable and based on a long history of collaboration between loggers and the state government (no surprise there). Though it may be acceptable business-as-usual for those benefitting from the current system, there is no denying that current tax laws artificially boost timber harvests in Oregon to levels far beyond what we would see under a free market.

Unfortunately, neither bill was advanced to a work session this year, but we are optimistic about the partnerships we built and hopeful that a renewed campaign for the Forest Carbon Incentives Act will gain traction in the 2020 revenue-focused legislature. We are so grateful to the dozens of our partners and supporters who traveled from around the state to attend one or both hearings. And we thank the hundreds more that filed comments online. With so much support, we surely communicated to lawmakers that these issues aren’t going anywhere and that we will be back.

The bills’ co-sponsors deserve our biggest gratitude – Representative Andrea Salinas (D-HD38) championed both bills and made clear that while the problems we face are grave, the solutions are attainable. She offered several times throughout both hearings to sit down with the opposition and discuss how to address these challenges together. Representative Karin Power (D-HD41), co-sponsor of the Oregon Safe Waters Act, eloquently portrayed that bill as an equity issue. She advocated for the rights of rural communities, stating that those who don’t have the resources to buy their watersheds should not be left to bear the cost of upstream industrial polluters. We also appreciate the support of Senator Kathleen Taylor (D-SD21) and Representative Rob Nosse (D-HD42), co-sponsors of the Forest Carbon Initiatives Act.

While some of our opposition suggested that the bills were simply reminiscent of the timber wars of the 1980s, it should be clear to anyone who is paying attention that the environmental problems we face today couldn’t be more distinct from those of the ‘80s. Climate change is upon us. It is more glaringly apparent in every fire season, every algal bloom in a drinking watershed left sitting under hotter summer suns, and every threatened species left with less available habitat. Our ecosystems are more vulnerable than ever, and common-sense updates to Oregon’s forestry laws should be a quick and easy step towards making Oregon the world-class carbon sink it was designed to be.

Despite some setbacks this year, we will continue pushing to reform the timber industry through the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, and with our allies. We know our coalitions will only grow stronger and our arguments more urgent. These problems can and must be solved and, with your support, they will be.

Alex Renirie is a Forest Policy Advocate at Center for Sustainable Economy, and Legislative Liaison with the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network.

That’s the title of the article as republished in High Country News. It originally appeared on The Conversation with this headline: “Planned burns can reduce wildfire risks, but expanding use of ‘good fire’ isn’t easy.” The article is aimed at the general public, but some passages are interesting to forest-management geeks like us. Lots of links to sources.

In our research on forest restoration efforts, we have found that some national policies are supporting larger-scale restoration planning and project work, such as tree thinning. But even where federal land managers and community partners are getting thinning accomplished and agree that burning is a priority, it has been hard to get more “good fire” on the ground.
…

As one land manager told us, “The law doesn’t necessarily impede prescribed burning so much as some of the more practical realities on the ground. You don’t have enough money, you don’t have enough people, or there’s too much fire danger” to pull off the burning.

In particular, fire managers said they needed adequate funding, strong government leadership and more people with expertise to conduct these operations. A major challenge is that qualified personnel are increasingly in demand for longer and more severe fire seasons, making them unavailable to help with planned burns when opportunities arise. Going forward, it will be particularly important to provide support for locations where partners and land managers have built agreement about the need for prescribed fire.