DePartisanizing Issues: Biomass Utilization and Fuel Treatments

by

 

 

It’s been interesting to watch the mechanics of how an issue becomes partisanized.. or departisanized. Two cheery notes on this wherein what used to be considered that bad R people had are now the same ideas that good D people from states like California and Colorado have.

At a alumni gathering a few years ago at Yale, Gina  McCarthy gave what amounted to a rousing very partisan political speech (personally that’s not why I show up for reunions, but that’s a different topic) that included the concept of biomass being bad for climate as if it were something everyone knows the “right answer” to.

Fast forward a few years and here’s Senator Feinstein saying what we’ve always said here- it depends.. Don’t look at our problems through an “east coastal” lens.

“I write to request that the Environmental Protection Agency use its administrative authority to revise the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to expand allowable sources for biomass to include vegetation cleared from human-occupied areas where it creates wildfire hazards,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “Since 2010, California has experienced unprecedented wildfires and this change would help reduce risk in my state, improve forest health, and make use of cleared vegetation.”

Here’s what her letter said:

As you may know, Section 201 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) allows biomass from federal land to be sourced “from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire.” In 2010, the EPA published implementation guidelines for that category in its final rule, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.” Unfortunately, the implementation of this law did not account for areas with wildfire hazard potential and excluded most of the Western United States where catastrophic wildfires are increasing common. (See attached map, “2020 U.S. Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Potential,” which underscores the risk in the West.)

As this year’s fuel quantities become finalized, I urge the EPA, in conjunction with federal land management agencies, to expand the criteria for which qualifying biomass could be sourced and, thus, eligible for credits under the cellulosic category in the RFS. This determination should be made in accordance with the latest science, and to recognize the exacerbating threat that climate change poses to catastrophic wildfire in the American West.

This one from the formerly “fuel treatments don’t work” Los Angeles Times.. (this is from a political reporter, not an environmental reporter, so..)

Democrats are proposing a potentially seismic shift in how the nation battles wildfires by dramatically increasing funding for efforts that aim to prevent blazes, rather than focusing on the tools to put them out.
Under the social safety-net and climate bill passed by the House and now being negotiated in the Senate, Democrats would funnel $27 billion into the nation’s forests, including a sizable $14 billion over a decade for clearing vegetation and other dry debris that can fuel a fire.

What this article seems to overlook is that there is a substantial chunk of change in the bipartisan Infrastructure bill, and that the BBB $ come with restrictions that may make them less useful than they could be.

Still, the $27 billion would represent the largest investment the federal government has made in its forests, according to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who introduced a similar forestry bill this year. Funding for the preventative hazardous fuels reduction — to be spread over a decade — is more than double what Congress spent on such efforts annually between 2011 and 2020, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Traditionally, the federal government has focused its wildfire spending on suppression at the expense of prevention. The Interior Department and Forest Service are even allowed to unilaterally move money from any of its programs, including fire prevention, to fund more urgent suppression efforts.

“When you combine the effects of climate change with the profound negligence of the federal government in terms of managing its national forests, these places are profound dangers to our communities and to our economy,” Bennet said.

“Profound negligence of the federal government in terms of managing its national forests”.. sounds almost like an R Congressperson from the Sierra, or dare I say, the Western Slope.

Timber Industry Hoodwinks Forest Service — Again

by

This is a graph of lumber value (click to enlarge). The recent low point for lumber was in April, 2020. Remember that date, we’ll come back to it below.

Now see what lumber has done since April of last year. Quadrupled in price by early 2021! That’s a lot of gelt for some lucky mills.

The luckiest of those mills are the ones that had Forest Service timber contracts expiring in April 2020. Why lucky? Because on April 10, 2020, the Undersecretary of Agriculture issued a two-year extension on the performance of those contracts. See what happened? Those purchasers quadrupled their earnings!

In my 40-year experience, Forest Service planners and economists have a perfect track record in predicting the future — they are always wrong.

Snowless Western Mountains and Co-Design and Co-Production of Useful Scientific Knowledge

by

This paper was excerpted by the WaPo here.

But a new study projects that in about 35 to 60 years, mountainous states may be nearly snowless for years at a time if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked and climate change does not slow. The resulting lack of water would be “potentially catastrophic,” according to the study’s authors.

It’s a really interesting paper with lots of great graphics and explanations of sources of uncertainty. For RCP watchers, it’s a review paper and there is some 8.5 and some 4.5 in the studies used, with a chart in the supplemental information page.
My favorite part was about planning, though. The numbers are citations.

Thus, at the same time that science evolves to increase predictive understanding of the mechanisms of hydroclimatic change, management practice must evolve to accommodate uncertainty regarding the changing patterns of current and future hydrologic variability. Developing a robust strategy and selecting investment options that balance competing societal objectives and multisectoral interactions (such as the interaction among water and energy 186 or water and carbon 207 reduction goals) requires new approaches to integrate water resource planning. Frameworks and planning methods for decision- making under deep uncertainty that acknowledge and accommodate imperfect knowledge regarding the probabilistic range of possible future conditions such as decision scaling 241, robust decision- making, dynamic adaptation pathways 242 and scenario planning can identify scientifically informed adaptive strategies that leverage best available science without overstating its confidence 243.

For instance, the United States Bureau of Reclamation and water management agencies within the Colorado River Basin engaged in a robust decision- making study that identified a range of potential future climate conditions under which water delivery obligations would be vulnerable. Portfolios of adaptation strategies aimed at demand reduction (including agricultural, municipal and industrial conservation) and supply augmentation (including reuse, desalination and water import) were evaluated for their ability to alleviate these vulnerabilities and for their trade- offs in cost, yield, technical feasibility, legal risk and other criteria. The portfolios generally increase system robustness but have a wide range of implementation costs, especially under the declining supply conditions, and vary between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin 244. Making science usable for decision- making requires strong trust between the parties 245. This trust often develops over deliberate, long- term collaboration 246, with mutual understanding of the science, models and tools being discussed and demonstration of the credibility, saliency and legitimacy of the new approach(es) 247. Institutional, technical and financial capacity to implement these approaches must also be overcome 233. Scientists must also recognize that practitioners are often directly responsible, sometimes even personally liable, for the outcomes of decisions made, which makes them hesitant in the application of new climate science 236, especially if perceived as not fitting with existing knowledge or policy goals 233,248.A path forward can be made by including Earth scientists, infrastructure experts, decision scientists, water management practitioners and community stakeholders, in a collaborative, iterative process of scientific knowledge creation through a co- production framework 41,42,249,250. This process helps to ensure that new science is suited to challenges at hand and can provide meaningful input into decision- making processes.

My bold.

I picked out some interesting-looking citations below:

Arnott, J. C., Mach, K. J. & Wong- Parodi, G. Editorial overview: The science of actionable knowledge. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, A1–A5 (2020).246.
Meadow, A. M. etal. Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim. Soc. 7, 179–191 (2015).247.
Cash, D. W. etal. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).248.
Dilling, L. & Lemos, M. C. Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 680–689 (2011).249. Lemos, M. C. etal. To co- produce or not to co- produce. Nat. Sustain. 1, 722–724 (2018).250.
Cash, D. etal. Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.372280 (2002).251. Cash, D. W., Borck, J. C. & Patt, A. G. Countering the loading- dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 31, 465–494 (2006).252.
Goodrich, K. A. etal. Who are boundary spanners and how can we support them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 45–51 (2020).

Historic Sites Raise Concerns About Siting of Renewable Energy Infrasturcture

by
The view east from the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. Park advocates and members of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, whose descendants were victims of the 1864 massacre, are concerned that a massive Xcel Energy project could infringe on the “cultural landscape” by placing towers and transmission lines in the viewshed. (Provided by Matt LeBlanc to the Colorado Sun)

The Colorado Sun has a story about wind turbine and power line development near historic sites, including Sand Creek, Camp Amache, and the Minidoka National Historic Site.

This article from Boise State Public Radio is about the Lava Ridge Energy Project which is on BLM land near the Minidoka National Historic Site. Conceivably different DOI agencies should be able to work this out.

This quote is about the Sand Creek Massacre site:

“It isn’t like any other national historic site, probably anywhere, because of the atrocities that went on there,” he said. “So when we as the tribes go back to the site, we’re going back to a place of sorrow, because that time era, and the massacre itself, was basically the beginning of historical trauma for our tribal people.

“When we go back to that site to reflect, to commemorate, to mourn, to try to heal,” he added, “seeing some big power lines there doesn’t help with that, aesthetically.”

The debate over how close is too close reflects a burgeoning issue nationwide as proposed construction of large-scale renewable energy projects like wind and solar arrays, key tools in the fight against climate change, bump sometimes uncomfortably against cultural landmarks.

……

And while she acknowledges that the NPS has no control over what happens beyond its borders, she notes that ever since Congress authorized the area as a national historic site in 2000, nothing has interfered with the cultural and educational experience.

“There were periods when it looked like oil and gas development was imminent, and large scale agriculture could make an impact on the viewshed,” Roberts said. “But none of that has happened in all these years.”

The National Parks Conservation Association, a nonprofit that describes its mission as protecting and preserving the nation’s parks, two weeks ago submitted a letter to the Colorado PUC, as well as Xcel’s siting consultant, laying out its concerns about the viewshed and communication with tribal interests. In addition to the Xcel project, the NPCA also is sensitive to potential wind power construction of towering turbines that rise higher than transmission towers, wrote NPCA Colorado senior program director Tracy Coppola.

Some park advocates recommend that transmission line towers — Xcel estimates the single-pole structures rising from 105 to 140 feet, depending on topography — should be at least 12 miles from its boundaries. In calculating that distance, the Sand Creek Massacre Foundation referenced a 2013 National Park Service-commissioned natural resource assessment, then adapted that report’s findings with regard to the viewshed to take into account the height of the towers.

Currently, Xcel said, it is evaluating locations for the new transmission lines 4 to 8 miles from the site’s boundary, but also will consider other options. “And that’s all part of our analysis,” said project manager Heather Brickey. “Our goal is to find the best route that meets the needs of the project and also meets the needs of the community.”

The NPS assessment identifies the cultural landscapes and viewshed as “fundamental resources and values for the site.”

“From a cultural and historical perspective, the views are not just about the scenery, but rather an important way to better understand the massacre at Sand Creek Massacre NHS,” the report said. “Visualizing the massacre as it played out on the landscape is a critical part of the visitor experience.”

Weiland on Critical Habitat and Proposed ESA Rule

by

I always find the many complexities and permutations of ESA to be confusing, and I’m always appreciative of Jon helping me out. And various definitions of critical habitat have been the source of controversy for forests in the Pacific Northwest.

I ran across this piece by Paul Weiland in a law firm’s newsletter that seems to be relatively clear.

His argument is generally:

This shift away from an explicit definition of habitat that provides for transparency and consistency in agency decisions is contrary to sound public policy, will erode faith in government decision-making, and is unlikely to lead to improved conservation outcomes for species protected under the Act.

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

In the absence of a definition of the term habitat prior to December 2020, there was substantial controversy and confusion regarding the scope of the federal government’s authority to designate critical habitat.  This came to a head in a case ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 regarding the designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog in the American southeast.  In its decision, the Court clarified that “’critical habitat’ is the subset of ‘habitat’ that is ‘critical’ to the conservation of an endangered species.” In other words, as a threshold matter, an area must be habitat before the federal government can consider whether to designate it as critical habitat.

 

That begged the question, what is habitat for species that are protected under the ESA and led the government down the path to the definition promulgated just a year ago.  For the purposes of designating of critical habitat, the federal wildlife agencies then defined habitat as “the abiotic and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a species.”

 

The agencies considered adopting a definition drawn from the literature in the field of ecology, but ultimately decided that in that field there was no settled definition of the concept. That may seem nonsensical on its face. One might fairly presume that researchers and practitioners in wildlife and fish biology work from a common definition of the foundational term habitat, but it’s not so. In fact, an article on the subject 25 years ago by Hall and colleagues surveyed the literature on habitat and found that the term is used in a manner that is vague and imprecise in most cases, and where imperiled species are involved references to habitat can be dangerously unclear or incorrect.

 

Despite this and the routine misuse of the term “habitat” in agency determinations and implementation of conservation actions under the Act, there are certain elements of the definition of habitat on which there is broad agreement in the scientific community.

 

  • Habitat is a species-specific concept. Each species has its own habitat, which may overlap in space and time with habitats of other species.
  • Habitat is composed of both (i) a combination of abiotic (physical) and biotic (living) components and (ii) ecological processes.
  • Habitat must be capable of supporting a species during one or more of its life stages. It must be habitable, though it need not be occupied at all times and may in fact be unoccupied for extended periods of time.

Each of those three elements of habitat are incorporated into the present definition that ostensibly guides the federal wildlife agencies.

 

In the proposed rule seeking to rescind but not replace the definition of habitat, the federal wildlife agencies offer the first and principal rationale that the definition could constrain the ability of the federal wildlife agencies to designate landscape areas as critical habitat — specifically, where such landscape areas do not currently or intermittently contain the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a species.

 

The agencies reason that certain geographic areas should be considered habitat because even though they do not currently accommodate the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a species, they could do so at some point in the future, either as a consequence of natural processes or human intervention. The problem with that reasoning is that it is directly at odds with the third element identified above — an area must be habitable to be habitat. The concept of habitat loses its meaning if it extends to any area that may at some point be habitat as a consequence of natural processes or human intervention.

Maybe someone can explain.. it doesn’t sound like the new regulation fits with the Supreme Court decision.. what nuance am I missing?
It also seems that with climate change, you could potentially say that everything north or at higher elevation of current habitat, could be future habitat because of climate change,as Weiland points out. He also discusses the utility of defining habitat versus not defining habitat.

The reality is that under the previous administration the federal wildlife agencies saw value in defining habitat for the purpose of designating critical habitat, because it would provide guidance to decision-makers and resource managers, promote the uniform application of the law, and reduce regulatory uncertainties. In contrast, under the current administration the federal wildlife agencies see value in the absence of a definition of habitat for the purpose of designating critical habitat, because it would provide discretion to agency regions, offices, and staff. That would potentially allow extraordinarily broad geographic areas to be characterized as habitat for listed species, thereby expanding regulatory authority. While some may see greater value in the latter set of goals than the former, the new rule undermines sound public policy both because it will reduce transparency in government decision-making and because it will result in inconsistent application of the law. It is not possible to make a credible argument that the current proposal is more in line with science and the scientific literature regarding habitat than the existing rule.

How One Forest Had 120 Fires in the Last Two Years but Only Burned a Total of 70 Acres: From Wildfire Today

by

I thought that this would be of special interest to TSW readers from SW Oregon. Now everyone might not agree with this approach, but it seems to me that George has some powerful arguments.  Also, we can’t forget that keeping large acreages of trees from burning up is good for carbon.  It’s a story about a forest which has been successful at keeping wildfires from burning up large areas using an approach that beefs up initial attack.   It comes from Wildfire Today in a post by Murry Taylor.  Well worth reading, and here’s an excerpt:

During the meeting Merv made it clear that the Regional Forester in Portland was aware and supported this strong IA approach. Dan wanted Chuck and I to also understand that he had had Merv’s full backing as well. And that he had told his crews that he would back them all the way. So, there you have it, the line authority of Supervisor, FMO, and crew leaders backing each other in the decisions they need to make when working fire.

The RRSNF approach: They didn’t depend solely on agency resources but went proactive with contract crews and engines during times of critical fire danger. They prepositioned smokejumpers from both Redmond and the BLM. They had a 20-person rappel crew and one hotshot crew—the Rogue River Shots. Rappel crews from other forests were called in as needed. This was all part of a preparedness Phase One and Phase Two program created and initiated on their own forest that went beyond the regular (Regional and National) preparedness level programs. It involved prepositioning a Type 1 helicopter, a Type 3 helicopter w/module, rappel crews, smokejumpers, engines, water tenders, etc.

As far as those critics who questioned how much money this cost, Merv George Jr. told us: I’ve spent millions on this forest fighting large fires since I got here. So, I’m not averse to spending money up front. One example is when a contract engine responded to and stopped a half-acre fire near Agness that had the potential to go big. If that fire had gone big, those savings alone could have made it all worth it.

As Merv made clear, we all know that fire needs to be returned to the forest landscape. The Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F. is on pace to have a record year with prescribed fire. But fire does NOT need to be there in summers of record low fuel moistures and record high fire danger, or in the hottest times of the year. These fires must be put out early and fast. If they’re not, then you end up facing August with exhausted crews scattered all over the West, people from other areas and maybe even agencies working fire on your turf, and skies filled with smoke so that air resources cannot be used effectively.

When it comes to safety, this is something Merv George Jr. thinks about a lot. It’s a calculated risk to encourage vigorous IA, since it can mean extra exposure early in most fire suppression efforts. Such actions can put people in harms way. But, to hold back and risk a fire growing large where it can really do a lot of damage for a long duration, is not—in Merv’s opinion—the most responsible choice.

 

Volunteers Wanted for The Smokey Wire

by

I’m interested in getting one or more volunteers for The Smokey Wire. I’ve accumulated way more interesting stories than I have been able to find the time to post. Also, there are many I need to write myself to explore areas that the news hasn’t covered.

It could be as simple as taking a list from me and posting the links and excerpts on The Smokey Wire. I actually got paid to do this for another outlet until I was abruptly fired for interjecting my opinion, so this activity might look good on a future resume. And of course, you would be welcome to add your own opinions and questions for discussion. There would be little or no pressure to produce by a certain time period, as I say to guest contributors, our issues are not going away soon so there’s no hurry.

I was thinking it would be a good experience for a student, since students have contacted me and told me how helpful TSW has been to their studies. On the other hand, it might be good for retirees as well. And of course, I’d be willing to train anyone in how to use WordPress.

Working with me: I think I’m fairly easy to work with, although others might disagree. I’ve mentored many people in the FS and supervised many. I’ve got all the academic credentials, and have served on student committees in the past. I’m willing to do the paperwork to have a formal internship if desirable.

It’s fun for me, and it might well be fun for you! Plus educational, learning new skills and all that. Please consider it. If you have questions or are interested please email me at [email protected].

Biden Admin Promotes Tribal Consultation and the Use of Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge

by

There’s an excellent article on EnergyWire on Biden Administration’s policies to increase consultation and collaboration with Tribes.

In the first Tribal Nations Summit since 2016, President Biden this month committed to, among other things, pursue more collaborative public lands management strategies with tribes and incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into federal agencies’ scientific analysis of projects.

“We’re going to make some substantial changes in Indian Country,” Biden said during the virtual event.

The same day, the government released a memorandum of understanding signed by 17 federal agencies agreeing to increase consultation and collaboration, in recognition of existing treaty obligations between the United States and tribal nations.

The announcements drew praise from Indian and environmental law experts, who saw the change as an important step for the Biden administration in improving relations between sovereign tribes and the United States.

The agreement, signed by agencies such as EPA and the Interior and Agriculture departments, is not legally binding, so it cannot by itself serve as the basis of a legal challenge to federal approval of energy projects on treaty lands.

But the agreement could help tribes hold the federal government legally accountable to its commitments to treat tribes as an equal partner in energy development on public lands.

The Biden administration’s pronouncements “may be relevant if there is litigation down the road, even if the tribe wouldn’t be able to just say, ‘You violated this [memorandum of understanding], and therefore, we’re suing you, and we win,'” said Monte Mills, co-director of the Margery Hunter Brown Indian Law Clinic at the University of Montana.

One way the agreement could bolster legal arguments is by allowing tribes to point to agency decisions that aren’t in accordance with the Biden administration’s consultation policies. Those arguments could be made in the context of lawsuits alleging violations of federal laws like the National Environmental Policy Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.

Besides consultation, there is also movement toward using Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge to inform federal decision making.

The Biden team’s move for greater collaboration with tribes isn’t a new concept, but the effort to establish common standards across agencies is a change from previous administrations, experts said.

“To have a president acknowledge and pay homage to the idea that there are different forms of information and worldviews that are helpful, it’s exciting to see it in a public way,” said Karen Bradshaw, an environmental law professor at Arizona State University.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the White House Council on Environmental Quality released a memorandum this month that committed to incorporating “Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge” into scientific and policy processes across the federal government.

The White House defined Indigenous knowledge as “a body of observations, oral and written knowledge, practices, and beliefs … applied to phenomena across biological, physical, cultural and spiritual systems.”

OSTP Director Eric Lander noted in a statement last week that Indigenous knowledge should “inform federal decision making.”

“This effort will give Federal agencies the tools they need to ensure Indigenous knowledge is appropriately considered and elevated,” Lander continued.

Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center said that increased consultation would complicate federal decisionmaking but would ultimately result in stronger agency actions.

“Bottom line, it’s the right move,” Schlenker-Goodrich said.

“It’ll accentuate complexity,” he continued, but the approach “also creates a path forward to better public lands management; respect for the first peoples of this continent; and a thriving, resilient future for all of us.”

It certainly make sense for the federal agencies to do consultation the same way. And it’s definitely the right thing to do IMHO. It’s also true that any efforts that complexify may create a tension with the Biden Admin desire for rapid renewable build-out on federal lands, as it has already done for mining for renewables.

Philosophy Saturday: How Much, If Any, Timber and Other Products “Should” Federal Forests Produce?

by

We’ve been having an interesting discussion based on Steve’s post about timber on federal lands.  But I think underlying that is a deeper question.  I also think that this discussion at the philosophical level may also be relevant to various other uses of federal land involving products.

Given, that we want to use products (say, build houses), protect the environment, and work on economic inequality, to what extent should we:

(1) Buy American/independence from other national entities

One philosophy is that if the US uses materials, then we should attempt to fill those needs here.   For example, the Biden Admin supports “Buy American.”  The idea is that we can control our own environmental regulations, our folks have jobs, we get to tax workers, corporations, real estate and so on,  and use the taxes for good things, and so on.  There are also concerns that being dependent on other countries for essentials can lead to negative national security implications.

BUT trade can reduce prices, and we all benefit from reduced prices, especially economically disadvantaged people.

So that’s a challenge to the “Buy American” idea. Except the low prices for everyone interact with blue collar jobs, taxes, international security and so on.  That’s why the whole enchilada of trade policy is so complex,  and doesn’t fall neatly along partisan political lines.

Still

(2) Even if we agree with 1, there is still the question of “how much of the products we use, if any, should come from federal land?”.  Now the Sierra Club has said a)  “no commercial logging” so they must believe 0.  Other answers include : b) only when it is a byproduct of ecological restoration, c) only when it’s a byproduct of restoration and/or fuel treatments.   Another approach is d) to the extent that the land is capable and harvesting doesn’t unduly affect the environment.  I think d is what we spend most of our time discussing, because TSW tends to be full of people knowledgeable about forest practices.  It isn’t, therefore,  surprising that the Sierra Club is/was against FSC certification for federal forests, because the practices don’t matter if you are philosophically against doing it at all.

Now what’s interesting to me is taking these same philosophical positions and relating them to oil and gas, mining, and wind and solar energy installations. All of these produce useful products for US citizens and all have environmental impacts.

  1. Should we do it in the US?   Some would say no mining nor oil and gas, but yes to wind and solar.
  2. If we do it in the US, should we do it on federal lands?  Some say no mining nor oil and gas but yes to wind and solar.  Some say no to everything on federal lands.

It seems to me that the only philosophically consistent approach would be 1) yes to US preference, but no to federal lands; 2) no to US preference, and therefore no to federal lands and 3) yes to US and yes to federal lands with desired levels of local consent, environmental and worker regulations, and appropriate payments to the USG.  The latter is where we spend most of our discussion time.

Still, there’s also question 3.

3) If we satisfy our own country’s demand (or not), should we allow exports from federal lands?  This is another trade conundrum. Trade deficits are thought to be bad, and being able to export is good.  Would that be a “trade barrier” to WTO? But we already have a log export ban from federal timberlands, which hasn’t been challenged as far as I know.

As Oscar Wilde said “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative”.  Still, I’m interested in where you all are philosophically and why.

 

 

 

 

USFS FY 2021 Harvest: 2.844 BBF

by

According to the American Forest Resource Council’s November 2021 newsletter, “the Forest Service’s timber sale outputs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, which were 2.844 billion board feet (BBF). This is a reduction of more than 11 percent, or 370 million board feet (mmbf), from the previous fiscal year. About 20 percent of the FY 2021 timber sale accomplishment was comprised of firewood permits, biomass, and other convertible materials, so the volume of sawtimber sold was closer to 2.3 BBF from the 188 million acres of National Forest System lands. The Forest Service has cited COVID and the massive 2020 wildfire season as key contributors to the decline. For a comparison, the Washington Department of Natural Resources annually sells about 550 MMBF – nearly 25% of the Forest Service’s national timber sale volume from just 2.5 million acres of state forest trust lands.”