BLM Conservation Rule Finalized- Kept Controversial Leases But Renamed Them

by

Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Strategy to Guide Balanced Management, Conservation of Public Lands

Public Lands Rule will help conserve wildlife habitat, restore places impacted by wildfire and drought, expand outdoor recreation, and guide thoughtful development 

A skeptic might wonder how the Forest Service could possibly “conserve wildlife habitat, restore places impacted by wildfire and drought, expand outdoor recreation, and guide thoughtful development” without such a rule? Here’s a link to the Rule. There are also fact sheets and other information here.

So let’s take a brief look to see what has changed based on the comments received. Hopefully, paid legal folks will look more intensively at it. Just in case you’re curious, they received “over 200,000 comments, the vast majority of which supported the effort. In response to the substantive comments received, the BLM clarified and refined concepts laid out in the proposed rule.”

Kind of sounds like they didn’t change anything, just clarified and responded.

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

I’m not a fan of the temporary ACEC idea, from the FAQS:

If the BLM finds the area meets the criteria for ACEC designation and determines that the relevant and important values could be irreparably harmed if not protected, then the BLM may implement temporary protections that could maintain the condition of identified resources until a potential ACEC can be fully evaluated through land use planning. The public would be notified of any temporary protections.

In response to comments received from individuals, state, Tribal and local governments, industry groups, and advocacy organizations, the BLM clarified that ACECs should typically be evaluated in land use planning because their designation is intended to be a proactive decision made in concert with other considerations that affect the same lands and resources. The Final Rule also refines procedures for ACECs that are nominated outside of the land use planning process, recognizing that the BLM can defer consideration of those areas and, in the rare instances when it may be necessary, can also implement temporary protections.

So the response to the comments was to state that they expect it to be used rarely? And so some group of whatever location and funding could nominate the area, and the public would be “notified”.
This does not sound like a robust public involvement process with considerations of Tribal view; I guess that would be OK because it’s “temporary” only until the next RMP.. and what is the RMP schedule, again?

******
I also wonder about the offsite mitigation idea. It doesn’t sound like there’s a role for both sets of communities to weigh in. Of course, the communities near the siting will weigh in, but what about the community receiving the mitigation lease?

Let’s look at an example in the FAQs

Appropriate places for restoration and mitigation leasing on public lands include degraded habitats in need of restoration, as well as intact landscapes and functioning ecosystems that can serve as compensatory mitigation for a particular action. For example, as part of authorizing a renewable energy project on public lands, the BLM and the project proponent may agree to compensate for loss of wildlife habitat by restoring or enhancing other habitat areas on public lands. A mitigation lease could be used to protect the restoration and enhancement actions.

But who and what are the lessees protecting the “restoration or enhancing” from, other than existing users? Just logically, if the project doesn’t need to be protected from existing users, why do you need a lease? If it does need to be protected, then from whom or what exactly? Some other new use such as another solar or transmission line? This puzzles me. But if it’s a new use, it would have to go through permitting and perhaps the “restored or enhanced” area could have been avoided (or mitigated elsewhere, perhaps via chains of mitigation..).

The Bird Example

The environmental analysis for an interregional transmission line finds the project would have unavoidable impacts on a bird species that is managed as imperiled by the BLM and by state governments where the transmission line is proposed. The authorizing agencies determine that compensatory mitigation is warranted to address impacts to the species, and the best remaining habitat is found on BLM-managed public lands.
In this case, the BLM could consider an application for a mitigation lease to conserve the bird’s habitat on public lands. The lease would identify conservation measures that address the unavoidable impacts to the bird species and would help ensure that these measures remain effective for the duration of the transmission line’s impact. The mitigation lease could be terminated or modified in response to changing habitat conditions.

Why would a lease be preferred to something more flexible? Suppose BLM goes to all the work of doing a lease for an area for some bird. But then the area is burned over. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have something more flexible and robust to change? Or maybe it makes more sense to make one intervention for a species in one place, and then make that same intervention in another place as opposed to making a series of interventions in the same place.

I am reminded of my first run-in with ideology. I was working in US Congresswoman Carrie Meek’s (17th District Florida) office in the mid-1990s. The issue was deregulation of power in Florida. No matter what questions I asked, deregulation was always the answer. It was impossible to engage with the proponents in a down-to-earth way- it was like pragmatism vs. ideology. Deregulation is great. Deregulation is better than sliced bread. Deregulation will only have positive effects. If you point out negatives, let me assure you the positives will outweigh the negatives. No, we don’t need those protections included because… Deregulation is great. It is better than sliced bread…

I have the same feeling about these leases, even if they changed the name.

E&E News Story on the Westerman Bill Hearing : Focus on the 10 AM and Out Idea

by
Chris French, the Forest Service’s deputy chief, on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. Natural Resources Committee/YouTube via E&E News

The Westerman bill is a compendium of policy ideas from various sources, some of which have been floating around for a long time. I think this E&E News story did a pretty good job of focusing on some of the main themes of the hearing.

I don’t think the 10am idea is going anywhere. I fully respect individuals who disagree, and I hope they move on to more detailed ideas for “being more careful.” If this Xprize or other technological innovations are successful, people will have to choose for every ignition and what will inform that choice? Human safety would seem to be less of a factors with unpersonned aircraft and so perhaps that will change the possibilities and choices of suppression as well.

What can we learn from fire with benefits that worked vs. those that didn’t work? How can we reimburse people who suffer when they don’t work? When wildfires are likely to hit private land, should landowners have a voice? It seems to me that there are many questions to be worked out. Perhaps with forest plan amendments or other pre-planning. Here at TSW we have seen a variety of people with concerns (Sarah Hyden and Michael Rains) and even Jon and I agree on the utility of plan amendments, which is fairly rare. Anyway, I think there’s a conversation around “if not 10 AM and out, how can FWB (fire with benefits) proponents build trust with impacted communities?”; a conversation that would be more complex than “10 AM or not.” Maybe the appropriate Congressional committee (perhaps not this one) can examine why FEMA seems to be uniquely unsuccessful at getting relief to impacted individuals after the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon escaped prescribed fires, as reported on in detail by The Hotshot Wakeup. I know that fire folks and academics are working on the trust issue.

Meanwhile, there’s a big story from NPR KRCC this morning on wildfire smoke health risks..

New research shows that the health consequences of wildfire smoke exposure stretch well beyond the smoky days themselves, contributing to nearly 16,000 deaths each year across the U.S., according to a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analysis released in April. The analysis warns that number could grow to nearly 30,000 deaths a year by the middle of the century as human-driven climate change increases the likelihood of large, intense, smoke-spewing wildfires in the Western U.S. and beyond.

“This really points to the urgency of the problem,” says Minhao Qiu, a researcher at Stanford University and the lead author. “Based on our results, this should be one of the policy priorities, or the climate policy priority, of the U.S., to figure out how to reduce this number.”

Another analysis, led by researchers from Yale University, finds that the human death toll every year from wildfire smoke could already be near 30,000 people in the U.S. Deaths from cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, kidney disease, and mental health issues all rise in the days and weeks after smoke exposure.

Together, the studies point to an underappreciated threat to public health, says Yiqun Ma, a researcher at Yale and an author of the second study.

“It’s a call to action,” she says—outlining the real, and significant, human stakes of failing to rein in further human-caused climate change.

Wildfire smoke is bad for people but fire is good for forests. How best to manage the trade-offs? How will climate change and the new technologies above balance out in terms of new future “large intense smoke-spewing wildfires”? How does planned prescribed fire, compared to Wildfire With Benefits fit into that? I don’t know, but I’m fairly certain health researchers don’t know either. Interestingly, it looks like the Wildland Fire Commission did not include folks from CDC?.

Anyway, here’s what Marc Heller reported on this.

Fire suppression debate
Westerman’s draft combines many ideas that haven’t advanced far in Congress, in some cases because Democrats won’t support them, but in others because they haven’t been attached to legislative vehicles that can get through the congressional logjam. The farm bill, for instance, covers the Forest Service but has languished for months on unrelated issues.

The quick extinguishing of wildfires has become a rallying point for some Republican lawmakers but would face hurdles with forest policy groups. It would place the requirement on drought-inflicted areas and on places the Forest Service has designated among the most at-risk landscapes, for instance.

One witness at the hearing, Kimiko Barrett, a member of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, said the 24-hour proposal goes against recommendations the panel made in a report to Congress several months ago.

“Calls to return to a 24-hour suppression policy are antithetical to allowing more beneficial fire, supersede local decisionmaking and are in direct opposition to the commission’s recommendations,” said Barrett, a senior wildfire researcher at Headwaters Economics in Bozeman, Montana.

********

The chilly response to the fire suppression provision contrasted to more positive views of other aspects of Westerman’s draft, which calls for creation of “firesheds” that would receive expedited thinning and prescribed fire to reduce the threat of wildfire, as well as updates to shared stewardship arrangements that allow the Forest Service to partner with outside groups for forest improvement projects.

Westerman, the only professional forester in Congress, said the draft resulted from years of work and bipartisan cooperation on a number of issues.

A proposal to streamline consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species issues has some Democratic support as well, and the community-based wildfire risk reduction programs and research have broad appeal.

In addition, the proposal would incorporate 10 of the nearly 150 recommendations the federal Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission made to Congress several months ago and adopt other policies that align with the commission’s findings — although it veers from that commission on the scope of fire suppression.

For some reason, Westerman said, forests have become politically divisive even though healthy forests benefit everyone through cleaner air and water, recreational areas and economic rewards of the wood products industry.

“It’s something we should all work toward,” Westerman said, adding that he took a bipartisan delegation to his alma mater, the forestry school at Yale University, last year to see how researchers manage its lands in Connecticut.

“People realize this shouldn’t be a divisive issue,” Westerman said.

French said a number of provisions in the draft that have been proposed in earlier legislation align with Forest Service goals. In the case of expedited environmental reviews for forest projects, he said the agency would want to clarify Westerman’s intent.

But in exchanges with lawmakers, French also acknowledged that tasks such as endangered species consultations, litigation and environmental reviews sometimes add substantial costs to forest management projects.

**************
Like I said, since this bill is a lengthy mix of different ideas, and the folks testifying had many interesting things to say (also in their written testimony), I’ll be posting in depth about some of the testimony and my observations.

Forestcast- Forest Service Podcast Season 4 with Fire Researchers

by

I think if you click on the blue arrow below you will get the trailer for this series of podcasts.

A New Biochar Research Program? Part of Westerman Bill

by

The Westerman Draft bill wants to support biochar research. It seems that many folks are already studying biochar. An idea would be to round these up, and look for gaps and overlaps before we send any more funding.

I tried the search terms forest and biochar for a variety of federal research organizations. Apparently, search terms select a broader group than I intended.

I looked at NSF (National Science Foundation) and searched on biochar and forests and got this.. but many of them don’t seem to have biochar or forests, so maybe my searching is at fault.

I looked at Department of Energy and found these, which are about biochar but the forest one is about biomass for energy 🙁 not biochar.

Here’s the list from National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA extramural research), again the search did not seem to restrict to biochar and forests.

I could find many biochar projects with the Forest Service, but not in a format that shows the funding and a link to the abstracts (which might exist, and I hope R&D folks will point that out.)

US Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior also doesn’t have project by dollars as far as I could tell, but does have this..including one on the effect of biochar on maize yield in Zambia. But it appears the last one was in 2015.

Speaking of agriculture, ARS (in-house USDA R&D) has a list of biochar projects.

This ongoing study is pretty interesting.

Through this project, we expect to demonstrate that applying biochar in agricultural lands for soil modification and remediation would be a climate-smart solution for sustainability in forest management, timber/biomass har- vesting, and economic growth of bioenergy, bioproducts, and crops. [2] Wood Fiber Insulation: The proposed solution is to evaluate several (underutilized) species in the region as feedstock for wood fiber insulation. Spruce (Pices spp.) and white pine (Pinus strobus) will serve as controls or “benchmarks”; other species to be investigated include: eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), bal- sam fir (Abies balsamea), red maple (Acer rubrum), and aspen (Populus tremuloides). [3] Wood Fiber Foam Packaging: Most available literature around foam forming is focused on rectangular shaped panels with no specific 3D shape. A process that can produce true 3D shaped lignocellulosic foamed structures by foam forming is currently lacking. In addition, low-density packaging foams are bulky and occupy a lot of space, making them difficult to ship and transport. Innovation is needed to develop foamed materials that can be compressed into high-density thin sheets for easier transportation and used upon 3D shape recovery after exposure to a stimulus. Finally, a clear understanding of the foam forming process in the presence of additives and various types of lignocellulosic feed- stock is required. Use of LCNF derived directly from wood sawdust as a binder in the formulation of such foams is another innovation that needs to happen to reduce costs and enable commercialization.

Sounds like something the FS could be funding?

I didn’t query NOAA, NASA or DOD. Conceivably biochar is related to climate and everyone studies climate (and researcher are creative in rationalizing what they want to do) so who knows?

Wouldn’t it be terrific if the research agencies would feed into a centralized database of all federal research? That included abstracts, and who is funding, how much and how long. Plus links to products. Then those interested could analyze gaps and overlaps. It appears that the Congress is interested in saving money.. but, I guess, not so much in spending it better. Especially when fixes would go across Committee responsibilities. Where is the Admin’s Office of Science and Technology Policy when you need it?

Researchers develop better way to make painkiller from trees

by

Here’s a link, thanks to Forest Business Network.

 

Scientists at the University of Wisconsin–Madison have developed a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable way to make a popular pain reliever and other valuable products from plants instead of petroleum.

Building on a previously patented method for producing paracetamol—the active ingredient in Tylenol—the discovery promises a greener path to one of the world’s most widely used medicines and other chemicals. More importantly, it could provide new revenue streams to make cellulosic biofuels—derived from non-food plant fibers—cost competitive with fossil fuels, the primary driver of climate change.

 

Paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen, is one of the most widely used pharmaceuticals, with a global market value of about $130 million a year. Since it was introduced in the early 1900s, the drug has traditionally been made from derivatives of coal tar or petroleum.

In 2019, Karlen and UW–Madison biochemistry professor John Ralph showed how it could be made instead from a compound in  using a well-known chemical reaction.

Now Karlen’s team has improved the process for making paracetamol as well as other drugs, pigments, textiles, and  with a cumulative market value of more than $1.5 billion, a portfolio of products that Karlen says could support dozens of small biorefineries feeding into larger hubs without saturating the market.

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

The process is available for commercial licensing through the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the nonprofit organization that commercializes university discoveries to support ongoing research.

The paracetamol molecule is made of a six-carbon benzene ring with two chemical groups attached. Poplar trees produce a similar compound called p-hydroxybenzoate (pHB) in lignin, the part of the cell wall that binds plant sugars together and provides structure.

Lignin is chock full of valuable aromatic compounds that could replace many petrochemicals and provide biorefineries with additional revenue streams to make plant-based fuels cost-competitive. The challenge is breaking down the complex and irregular chain of molecules into useful components.

From Frivolous Litigation to Western Headquarters Via Many Other Ideas: Westerman’s Bill: What’s In it and What Do You Think?

by

Subtitle C actually says “addressing frivolous litigation” and Section 121 is titled “Commonsense Litigation Reform”

Here’s the text. We’re going to need help from lawyers out there..

a) IN GENERAL.—A court shall not enjoin a fireshed management project under this Act if the court determines that the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that the claim 7 of the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
8 (b) BALANCING SHORT- AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN CONSIDERING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.—As part of its weighing the equities while considering any request for an injunction that applies to any agency action as part of a fireshed management project under this Act, the court reviewing the agency action shall balance the impact to the ecosystem likely 15 affected by the fireshed management project of—
16 (1) the short- and long-term effects of under taking the agency action; against 18 (2) the short- and long-term effects of not undertaking the action.
20 (c) TIME LIMITATIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.—
21 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the length of any preliminary injunctive relief and stays pending appeal that applies to any agency action as part of a fireshed management project under this Act shall not exceed 30 days.

1 (2) RENEWAL.—
2 (A) IN GENERAL.—A court of competent  jurisdiction may issue one or more renewals of any preliminary injunction, or stay pending appeal, granted under paragraph (1).
6 (B) UPDATES.—In each renewal of an injunction in an action, the parties to the action shall present the court with updated information on the status of the fireshed management project.
11 (d) LIMITATIONS ON CLAIMS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial review of a fireshed management project  shall be barred unless—  such claim is filed not later than 120 days after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal Register of agency intent to carry out the proposed agency action;

This sounds like a time limit for filing.

19 (2) such claim is filed after the issuance of a record of decision or other final agency action with respect to the relevant proposed agency action; and

How could it be filed before the ROD is issued?

22 (3) such claim does not challenge the use of a categorical exclusion under this section.

I’m kind of lost in the negatives here. “a claim shall be barred unless it does not challenge the use of a CE? So claims about CE-hood would be barred? Under “this” what (?) section.

Section 122 sounds like the Cottonwood fix but maybe not.

ARBITRATION PILOT PROGRAM

This is always one of my favorites. People learn a lot from pilots. This one has a ceiling, no more than 15 projects per year per FS Region or BLM States. You could lower the numbers, but is anyone really against it? Apparently the results would not be subjected to judicial review, except “as 16 provided in section 10(a) of title 9, United States Code.” Maybe someone knows what that is.

COMMUNITY WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM.

Then there’s a section on WUI. My friends who are involved in community wildfire programs tell me that this would be very useful

create a single, uniform application and portal for local communities seeking to apply for Federal financial assistance or 23 technical assistance programs targeted at reducing fire risk to communities

Also these:

SIMPLIFICATIONS.—In creating the portal under paragraph (1), the Secretaries and the Ad1ministrator shall seek to reduce the complexity and length of the application process.
18 (3) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary of the Interior shall provide technical assistance to communities looking to apply for financial assistance under the streamlined application and portal created under paragraph (1).

Of course, Congress can’t do that, but a really wild and crazy idea would be for States to try to simplify  procedures for funding as well and maybe try to harmonize with the feds..

Then there’s section 202 which seems to be about controlling management of fires for resource benefits. That’s probably worth its own post, if anyone wants to take a look.

A Community Wildfire Defense Research Program (expanding JFSP to include):

(1) different affordable building materials, including mass timber;
5 (2) home hardening;
6 (3) subdivision design and other land use planning and design;
8 (4) landscape architecture; and
9 (5) other wildfire-resistant designs for structures or communities, as determined by the Secretary.

And a Community Wildfire Defense Innovation Prize

A new CE for power line operation and maintenance:

“the development and approval of a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and 11 (2) the implementation of routine activities conducted under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).

Plus a change to FLPMA from 10 to 50 feet of a power line for hazard trees.

Seeds of Success

I imagine Defense is included here as federal lands include Forest Service, some Interior agencies and DOD. The point seems to be enhance the domestic supply chain of native seeds, in a manner coordinated across agencies. It seems like it’s about native plants perhaps not including trees, as it appears to be BLM focused. I’d put them (trees and other natives) together somehow and get them coordinated.

Biochar Demonstration Projects and Biochar Competitive Grants. (more on this later)

Accurate Hazardous Fuels Reduction Reports

This approach sounds plausible to me, certainly it needs clarification and consistency. Many other groups, of various persuasions, have pointed out the problems with the current approach.

Public Private Wildfire Technology Deployment and Testbed Partnership
This seems like a mechanism for coordination among agencies to ensure real-world testing of new technologies. Hopefully, this will ensure that less USG funding is spent on random “sounds plausible” technologies, and gets them to field testing. Note that it includes say, thinning as a hazardous fuels reduction, so all our friends interested in mechanizing and improving marking and harvesting would be included.

(A) hazardous fuels reduction treatments or activities;
5 (B) dispatch communications;
6 (C) remote sensing, detection, and tracking;
8 (D) safety equipment; and
9 (E) common operating pictures or operational dashboards; and
11 (3) partner with each covered entity selected to participate in the Pilot Program with the appropriate covered agency to coordinate real-time and  on-the-ground testing of technology during wildland  fire mitigation activities and training.

GAO Study on Forest Service Policies

(A) the effectiveness of Forest Service wildland firefighting operations;
(B) transparency and accountability measures in the Forest Service’s budget and accounting process; and
(D) the suitability and feasibility of establishing a new Federal agency with the responsibility of responding and suppressing wildland 2 fires on Federal lands;

What happened to C? Also I’d have two studies, one that looked at the Interagency wildland firefighting and the idea of a new Federal Agency (why just FS?) and a separate one for FS budget transparency and accountability.

Forest Service Western Headquarters Study

It’s not clear to me whether this is to substitute for Regions or to add another layer of bureaucracy. Perhaps it will be clear in FS testimony tomorrow.

Summary: there are lots of interesting ideas in this bill.  It will be interesting to see the FS testimony.  What do you think?

Westerman’s Bill: What’s In it and What Do You Think? Up to Subtitle C

by

I’m working off the discussion draft here.

The idea is to designate firesheds.

are identified as being in the top 20 percent of firesheds for wildfire expo6 sure based on the following criteria:
Wildfire exposure to communities, including risk to structures and life.
Wildfire exposure to municipal watersheds.
Risk of forest conversion due to wildfire.
shall not overlap with any other fireshed management areas;
may contain Federal and non Federal land; and where the Secretary concerned shall carry out fireshed management 20 projects.

I am not a fan of the “risk of forest conversion” criterion..seems to me (given my background in refo practices) that where there are trees, with appropriate practices you can get trees back. Plus with lots of bucks at stake, this could lead to a great deal of..err.. creativity

Agencies Get Their Stuff Together
The Bill would establish a Center where agencies would coordinate efforts. Which ones?
The Forest Service.

8 (B) The Bureau of Land Management.
9 (C) The National Park Service.
10 (D) The Bureau of Indian Affairs.
11 (E) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
12 (F) The U.S. Geological Survey.
13 (G) The Department of Defense.
14 (H) The Department of Homeland Security.
16 (I) The Department of Energy.
17 (J) The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
19 (K) National Science Foundation.
20 (L) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
22 (M) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
24 (N) The National Institute of Standards and Technology.

What Would the Center Do?

The purposes of the Center are to—
13 (1) comprehensively assess and predict fire in 14 the wildland and built environment interface through 15 data aggregation and science-based decision support services;
17 (2) reduce fragmentation and duplication across Federal land management agencies with respect to predictive service and decision support functions related to wildland fire;

I’d strike “land management”..it’s likely that NASA NOAA NSF and DOE are all feeding at the prediction and decision support modeling research funding trough.

21 (3) promote interorganizational coordination
22 and sharing of data regarding wildland fire decision making;

1 (4) streamline procurement processes and cybersecurity systems related to addressing wildland fire;

Not sure what problem that is intended to address but it sounds interesting…

4 (5) provide publicly accessible data, models, technologies, assessments, and fire weather forecasts 6 to support short- and long-term planning regarding wildland fire and post-fire recovery; and 8 (6) maintain the Fireshed Registry created 9 under section 103.

I’d add open (including practitioner) peer review of models, technologies and assessments, including involvement of practitioners in modeling, technology development and assessment.

Fireshed Registry Data (interactive spatial)

(a) FIRESHED REGISTRY.—The Secretary of Agri17 culture, acting through the Director of the Fireshed Cen18 ter appointed under section 102, shall maintain a Fireshed 19 Registry on a publicly accessible website that provides 20 interactive geospatial data on individual firesheds, including information on—
22 (1) wildfire exposure delineated by ownership,23 including rights-of-way for utilities and other public 24 or private purposes;
1 (2) any hazardous fuels reduction treatments 2 that have occurred within an individual fireshed in 3 the past 10 years;
4 (3) wildfire exposure delineated by—
5 (A) wildfire exposure to communities, including risk to structures and life;
7 (B) wildfire exposure to municipal watersheds; and
9 (C) risk of forest conversion due to wild10 fire;
11 (4) the percentage of the fireshed that has 12 burned in wildfires in the past 10 years, including, 13 to the extent practicable, delineations of acres that 14 have burned at a high severity;
15 (5) spatial patterns of wildfire exposure, including plausible extreme fire events; and
17 (6) any hazardous fuels reduction treatments 18 planned for the fireshed, including fireshed management projects under section 106 of this Act

This almost sounds like an assessment for a fire plan amendment..whoops.. Section 105 is.. Fireshed Assessments.

Then there’s a Peoples’ Permitting Database

(1) publish fireshed assessments created under 5 section 105; and
6 (2) maintain a searchable database to track—7 (A) the status of Federal environmental reviews, permits, and authorizations for specific fireshed management projects conducted under
10 section 106, including—
11 (i) a comprehensive permitting timetable;
13 (ii) the status of the compliance of each lead agency, cooperating agency, and participating agency with the permitting timetable;
17 (iii) any modifications of the permitting timetable required under clause (i), in1cluding an explanation as to why the permitting timetable was modified; and
21 (iv) information about project-related public meetings, public hearings, and public comment periods, which shall be presented in English and the predominant
25 language of the community or communities most affected by the project, as that information becomes available;
3 (B) the projected cost of fireshed management projects; and
5 (C) the effectiveness of completed fireshed management projects in reducing the wildfire exposure within an applicable fireshed, including—
9 (i) wildfire exposure to communities, including risk to structures and life;
11 (ii) wildfire exposure to municipal watersheds; and
13 (iii) risk of forest conversion due to wildfire.

Now, the NEPA part is confusing to a new reader.
If a project is identified through the Assessment and falls into these (pretty broad) categories..

2) FIRESHED MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.—The 4 responsible official shall carry out the following for5 est management activities as fireshed management projects under this section:
7 (A) Conducting hazardous fuels manage8 ment, including mechanical thinning, prescribed 9 burning, cultural burning, timber harvest, masication, and grazing.
11 (B) Creating fuel breaks and fire breaks.
12 (C) Removing hazard trees, dead trees, dying trees, or trees at risk of dying, as determined by the responsible official.
15 (D) Developing, approving, or conducting routine maintenance under a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and
18 maintenance plan submitted under section 19 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)).
21 (E) Removing trees to address overstocking or crowding in a forest stand, consistent with the appropriate basal area of the forest stand as determined by the responsible 25 official.
1 (F) Using chemical treatments to address insects and disease and control vegetation competition or invasive species.
4 (G) Any activities recommended by the state-specific fireshed assessment carried out under section 105.
7 (H) Any activities recommended by an applicable community wildfire protection plan.
9 (I) Any combination of activities described 10 in this paragraph.

Our lawyer friends probably know the CFRs under emergency fireshed management on page 21. Section B on page 22 talks about using existing CE authorities under HFRA, the Lake Tahoe CE, and the IIJA CE’s. It also seems to replace the Emergency Situation Determination described in IIJA with projects identified in the assessment. The practical result seems to be no objection process and this clause:

A court shall not enjoin an authorized emergency action under this section if the court determines that the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that the claim of the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.

*********
The bill also adds Indian Tribes to getting funding from Good Neighbor Authority projects (I thought this had been done a while back, but I guess not).

Intra Agency Strike Teams. I read about this and they sounded like inter-agency strike teams, to facilitate coordination so I was confused.

*************
This is getting long so I will start another post..Subtitle C- Addressing Frivolous Litigation is the next topic.

Hearing Tomorrow on Westerman’s Bill: E&E News Story

by

Thanks to a TSW reader for this.

 

E&E DAILY | The House Natural Resources Committee will focus this week on a Republican bill to more quickly thin forests deemed in danger of wildfire.

Rep. Bruce Westerman, the chair of the committee, has proposed draft legislation to create federal “firesheds,” or areas the Forest Service has determined are at the highest risk of fire, and to expedite projects to remove overgrowth and dead or dying trees. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands, chaired by Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.), is scheduled to take testimony on it.

The draft bill calls for categorical exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act to designate emergency firesheds every five years, beginning with areas already highlighted in the Biden administration’s 10-year wildfire strategy. More areas would be listed every five years, with projects not subject to environmental assessments or environmental impact statements.

We’ll discuss this in greater detail in the next post.

The draft also would provide for such exclusions along electric power rights of way, responding to the danger of fires started by downed power lines.

Now if we go back to Senator Tester’s questions last week about how a 100 foot tall tree fell on a power line.. and the Forest Service only let the Coop cut trees 10 feet on each side (if that is true, did not hear the FS side of the story) despite the Coop’s asking to do it, then there might be something useful there.  Also, in the Region 2 public meeting about Environmental Analysis and Decision-making, the power company folks offered that power line maintenance would be best served by a power line-wide decision, not District by District.  I wonder whether the Forest Service and the country might be better off with a national plan amendment for power lines rather than Old Growth.

Westerman, a trained forester, is one of Congress’ most outspoken proponents of a more intensive approach to managing forests, many of which have grown thicker with vegetation due to past polices of fire exclusion.

I hope I’m not being overly sensitive about natural resource professionals here, but he’s a Yale-educated forester.  Sounds better than “trained.” Also has experience in practice as a forester and engineer.

From Wikipedia:

He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in engineering in 1990 and subsequently received a master’s degree in forestry from Yale University.[2]

Westerman worked as an engineer and forester before being elected to the Arkansas House in 2010. He was formerly employed as an engineer and forester by the Mid-South Engineering Company.

Back to the story.

Projects to remove trees — dead or alive — on fire-prone federal lands sometimes face years-long delays through NEPA reviews and litigation, both of which Westerman has tried to tamp down through legislation.

On the other side are environmental groups and advocates who say forests are better off, and more resilient, with less removal of trees for timber harvest and other purposes.

Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist at Wild Heritage, a Berkeley, California, environmental group, charged Westerman with “gutting the nation’s bedrock environmental laws as we approach Earth Day,” which is April 22.

Mature forests and large, old trees, on national forests store from 35 percent to 70 percent more carbon than logged areas, contain clean drinking water, support imperiled wildlife and are a guard against wildfire, DellaSala said. “They need to be taken off Westerman’s legislative cutting board.”

Here we go again.. thinning doesn’t help trees survive in dry areas.  As if there was one practice known as “logging” ..

Westerman’s proposal addresses other forest priorities as well, including promoting biochar — partially combusted wood that acts as a soil conditioner — produced from forest thinnings.

The draft bill would also promote re-seeding of native or fire-resistant grasses in burned-over areas, particularly in the wildland-urban interface.

And the proposal would tweak Forest Service provisions for long-term contracting with outside organizations for forest management, including by requiring the government to pay 10 percent of the contract cost as a termination fee, if the government ends such a contract early.

This bill is interesting so we’ll check it out in the next post.

 

The E&E News Story on Keystone Agreements and Some Additions

by

 

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:

*Leslie is on a full-time detail to USDA Natural Resources and Environment, effective February 2022 through February 2024.

Leslie Jones oversees our policy team’s collaboration with agency partners and the development of legislative solutions with federal congressional champions. Jones has over 25 years of experience in shaping conservation policy. Prior to joining American Forests in 2020, Jones served as deputy undersecretary and chief of staff for natural resources and environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where her work included overseeing the U.S. Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service on a variety of natural resource issues, including management of the 193-million-acre National Forest and Grassland System, and implementation of Farm Bill conservation programs on America’s farms, ranches and forests. Jones was also chief of staff at the global ocean conservation organization, Oceana, and general counsel for The Wilderness Society.

Not surprisingly, given that they seem to be the same people, American Forests tells us that “the Biden Administration continues to deliver as champions of America’s Forests”:

In response to the USDA Forest Service’s Notice of Intent to Amend Land Management Plans released today, American Forests President and CEO Jad Daley released the following statement:

The Biden-Harris administration continues to deliver as champions of America’s forests, helping to conserve and steward the nation’s old growth forests and the vast amounts of carbon they store. For too long, irreplaceable old growth forests have lacked a consistent and adaptable policy to support their conservation and management, but today’s announcement by the USDA Forest Service offers a needed new course.

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?

Keystone Agreement Information Update and Apology

by

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.

.