Fuel Treatments and Carbon in Forests: Why Scientists Come to Different Conclusions

by

Awhile back, Rene Voss commented with regard to the question “is “leaving things alone” the best for climate mitigation?”:

“There are several scientific analyses that show that leaving the forests vs. various management schemes to reduce fuels & fire risk is the best approach to help mitigate climate change.”

Mitchell et al. (2009) describes tradeoffs for managing for carbon storage (a valid goal in any forest management action) versus fuels reduction. That study suggests that, with the exception of some xeric ecosystems, “fuel reduction treatments should be forgone if forest ecosystems are to provide maximal amelioration of atmospheric CO2 over the next 100 years.” Id. at 653.

Depro et al., 2007, found that eliminating logging would result in massive increases in Carbon sequestration. “Our analysis found that a “no timber harvest” scenario eliminating harvests on public lands would result in an annual increase of 17–29 million metric tons of carbon (MMTC) per year between 2010 and 2050—as much as a 43% increase over current sequestration levels on public timberlands and would offset up to 1.5% of total U.S. GHG emissions.” (Depro et al., 2007 abstract)

Moreover, Mitchell et al. (2009) found the amount of net carbon released into the atmosphere, on an acreage basis with small diameter thinning for fuel reduction (if used for biomass), puts more carbon into the atmosphere than an average fire, on an acreage basis:

“Our simulations indicate that fuel reduction treatments in these ecosystems consistently reduced fire severity. However, reducing the fraction by which C is lost in a wildfire requires the removal of a much greater amount of C, since most of the C stored in forest biomass (stem wood, branches, coarse woody debris) remains unconsumed even by high-severity wildfires. For this reason, all of the fuel reduction treatments simulated for the west Cascades and Coast Range ecosystems as well as most of the treatments simulated for the east Cascades resulted in a reduced mean stand C storage. One suggested method of compensating for such losses in C storage is to utilize C harvested in fuel reduction treatments as biofuels. Our analysis indicates that this will not be an effective strategy in the west Cascades and Coast Range over the next 100 years.”

(my bolds)

And yet, other studies (and visible evidence) show that not burning forests is better for carbon sequestration (see the one Steve linked to here). So I went back to look at Mitchell 2009, which can be found here.

The authors picked three kinds of sites, the Coast Range, the west Cascades, and east of the Cascades (on the Deschutes). Now it may be just me, but I don’t think of fuel treatments in the Coast Range or the west Cascades. So I looked around a bit and found this interesting study by Ager et al. 2014, which indicates that no forests in the Coast Range, Western Oregon, or (surprisingly to me!) even the Deschutes are on the top 50% of areas where fires are likely to occur.

It seems likely that if an area doesn’t burn and keeps sequestering carbon that is a good carbon situation. Just like we have talked about before.. if you want to get a great deal of carbon sequestered, pick a place where trees and other plants grow well and there are no fires or bug outbreaks. On the other hand, some key questions for looking at fuel treatments are 1) is this area likely to burn and 2) are there critters or people and their stuff that need protection (despite whatever carbon impacts)? It looks like the Mitchell et al. authors selected two places unlikely to burn and said “fuel treatments will decrease carbon sequestration here.” That seems perfectly plausible. But most of us would ask “why would you even do that in the Coast Ranges and western Oregon?”. Another question is if fires are unprecedented due to cc, what do we really know about the fires of the future? Is it then “the best science” to use the past for input into models?” Or regionally downscaled climate models? Or just admit we really don’t have a clue? Or even “why do this study if the reason people do fuel treatments has very little to do with climate mitigation?”

A quick look at the Depro et al. paper that Rene also cites, shows that it is talking about timber harvests (across the country) and not fuel treatments in dry forests.

But back to Rene’s original point “several scientific analyses that show that leaving the forests vs. various management schemes to reduce fuels & fire risk is the best approach to help mitigate climate change.” To my mind that’s not what actually these studies show, and not exactly what the authors said in the papers.

Annual wildfires hurt forests’ carbon retention- Study

by
Nearly two decades after the 2002 Hayman fire in Colorado, this high-severity burn area near Cheesman Lake is still treeless.
Michael Elizabeth Sakas/CPR News

Greenwire had this story on Feb. 26: “Annual wildfires hurt forests’ carbon retention — study.” The study ($), “Decadal changes in fire frequencies shift tree communities and functional traits, is here.

This is what some of us on Smokey Wire and elsewhere have been saying for years.

Excerpt:

Repeated, intense wildfires have damaged forests’ ability to grow fire resistant and store carbon, causing scientists to rethink how to deploy tree-planting efforts after natural disasters.

After 50 years, regions with the most extreme annual fires suffered from a 63% smaller wooded area with almost three-quarters of the individual trees than in regions that never burned, according to the study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution.

Even in regions with tree species that are well-equipped to withstand frequent burnings, fires over the past couple of decades have often decimated fire-resistant adult trees, while younger saplings haven’t been able to reach maturity.

“After a fire, a small tree has to regrow the biomass that it lost during the fire, which takes time,” said Adam Pellegrini, a co-author of the study and professor at the University of Cambridge. “The more frequent a fire is, the lower probability that the trees can grow fast enough to become resistant.”

What is 30 x 30? Watson Post

by

Thanks to Rebecca Watson for investigating the history and current status of 30 x 30. As a scientist, I just have to say that even if you write a scientific paper and make a series of assumptions, that does not make something “science.” For example, if you have x protections where x is unknown (in practice, as opposed to on paper) to determine you need y acres to protect z creatures may fall into “the current thinking of some scientists” but the scientific basis for the claim is, in fact, questionable. There’s also a substantial social science literature on biodiversity conservation that looks specifically at politics, power and privilege associated with “protected” areas.

Anyway, here’s the link to her blog post. an excerpt is below.

What is the status of the 30% target in the U.S.?

According to the congressional 30×30 resolution (relying on data from the U.S. Geological Survey[7]):

“(1) only 12 percent of the land area in the United States [is] permanently protected, mostly in Alaska and the West; and

(2) only 26 percent of Federal ocean territory [is] permanently protected, the vast majority of which is in the remote western Pacific Ocean or northwestern Hawaii . . . .”

The National Geographic Society maintains the U.S. will need to conserve an additional 440 million acres, within the next 10 years.

Given the significant amount of protected federal lands, the 12% protected land percentage seems low. We know the federal government owns 650 million acres, approximately 28% of the U.S., and that almost 40% of those lands, excluding Alaska, are in a protected status.[8] The simple answer is that federal protections do not measure up to the international biodiversity standards used by the USGS. Only those lands that meet the requirements of GAP 1 (permanent protection, mandated management plan to maintain a natural state with little to no management) or GAP 2 (permanent protection, mandated management plan to maintain a primarily natural state, with some uses/management allowed) count.

Conservation of which lands and what will “count”?

Candidate Biden’s Climate Plan included a commitment to 30×30 to protect “biodiversity,” slow the “extinction rate” and leverage “natural climate solutions.” President Biden stated that he would focus on the “most ecologically important lands and waters.” The 30×30 initiative is to include “all lands” — federal, fee, Tribal, state and local. Is it feasible to apply the GAP 1 and GAP 2 criteria to all these types of lands to reach the goal or can it be met with a variety of conservation standards? The Center for American Progress argues, “[m]easuring progress toward a 30X30 goal should account for a wide range of enduring conservation solutions.” Who decides what those “enduring solutions” are? In announcing the EO, President Biden said it, “launches a process for stakeholder engagement from agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, Tribes, States, Territories, local officials, and others to identify strategies that will result in broad participation.”

In the U.S., ecologically important habitat is on private land—about 2/3 of listed endangered species are found on fee lands. More than half of U.S. forests — important as carbon sinks— are private.  Conservation easements and Farm Bill incentives have been used successfully to conserve habitat on fee land that is also used for farming, ranching or limited residential use. Will the administration “count” conservation on “working lands”? If so, what are the conservation standards for fee lands and who will promulgate them? A recent op-ed in The New York Times by two wildlife ecologists urged the administration to move thoughtfully and inclusively on these critical lands. “Top-down declarations and land-use restrictions from Washington risk alienating rural Americans who otherwise support healthy lands, waters and wildlife . . . .”

Reading her description, I wonder why (and who) chose to cut off the protected areas as Gap 1 and Gap 2 (not lining up with IUCN here). Seems like that’s a pretty important decision (now that this is federal policy) and should be open to say, rulemaking and public comment?

January 2021 Litigation

by

As I mentioned in conjunction with the February 18 NFS Litigation Summary, we missed a few things in January.  Here’s an attempt to catch up on that.  (You might get the impression that the last-minute efforts of the outgoing Trump administration have something to do with the flurry of new litigation.)

FOREST SERVICE

(New lawsuit.)  On January 8, 2021, several environmental organizations in the southeastern U. S. challenged the Forest Service’s November 19, 2020, adoption of new regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (which we discussed here).  In particular, plaintiffs are concerned about the categorical exclusion allowing logging of up to 2800 acres without preparing an Environmental Assessment.  (We discussed this indirectly here.)

(New lawsuit.)  On January 8, 2021, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed a lawsuit claiming the Forest Service must reinitiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the forest plan for the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest regarding new information about the impacts of illegal motorized road use on grizzly bears.

(New lawsuit.)  On January 11, 2021, the Forest Service issued a final Record of Decision that amends the Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to allow the Mountain Valley Pipeline project to move forward.  The ROD modifies certain standards in the Forest Plan to accommodate the pipeline construction.  Conservation groups sued just hours after the Forest Service decision was released.  In a separate proceeding before the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit, the court refused to stay a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission allowing construction to begin elsewhere on the pipeline route.

(New lawsuit.)  On January 14, 2021, conservationists challenged the Stateline Range grazing project, a Forest Service decision that would allow livestock grazing across 271,665 acres of the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico over a 10-year period.

(Settlement.)  The federal government settled a lawsuit filed by the mining company regarding clean-up of existing mining waste on the site that is proposed for further development on the Payette and Boise National Forests.  The Nez Perce Tribe is continuing a separate Clean Water Act lawsuit against the company, and issued the statement linked above.

BLM

(Settlement.)  On January 6, 2021, the BLM agreed to stop drilling on more than 45,000 acres of oil and gas leases until officials revise land management plans in the Grand Junction and Colorado River Valley Field Offices.  The settlement results from a 2018 lawsuit challenging the agency’s failure to undertake site-specific environmental review when it approved the leases, instead relying on the allegedly inadequate resource management plans.

(Notice of Intent.)  On January 12, 2021, four conservation groups notified the BLM of its intent to sue for violations of the Endangered Species Act stemming from two decisions to build up to 11,000 miles of fuel breaks across 223 million acres of Bureau of Land Management public lands in the Great Basin.

(New lawsuit.)  On January 15, 2021.  The Colorado Department of Natural Resources filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s resource management plan for the Uncompahgre Field Office. The plan would open nearly one million acres of public lands to drilling and mining in southwest Colorado.  This case argues that, as in a case Montana won against the BLM, the decision is invalid because it was made by acting BLM Director William Perry Pendley who did not have authority to do so (discussed on this blog here).

  • Fracking:  WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt (D. D.C.) (This news release has a link to the complaint.)

(New lawsuit.)  On January 19, 2021, WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility filed a complaint against BLM’s approval of 890 oil and gas leases encompassing over 1 million acres of public lands across Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming between March 2019 and December 2020.  This news release has also summarized recent and ongoing litigation against oil and gas leasing on public lands (but it didn’t include this additional case against the Pendley RMP decisions).

 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

(Notice of Intent)  On January 5, 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a Notice of Intent to Sue the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for delaying protection for 11 species that have been identified as warranting endangered status but were placed on a candidate list instead.  Included on that list is the northern spotted owl, which was found warranted for uplisting from threatened to endangered in December.

  • Salamander recovery plans: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.) (This news release has a link to the complaint.)

(New lawsuit.)  On January 13, 2021, The Center for Biological Diversity and Healthy Gulf sued the Trump administration today for failing to issue recovery plans for the endangered reticulated and frosted flatwoods salamanders.  The frosted flatwoods salamander is associated with the longleaf pine flatwoods that once extended across much of the Southeastern U.S. Today their range within Florida has been reduced primarily to the Apalachicola National Forest and a national wildlife refuge, and they are also found on the Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina (and maybe others).

(New lawsuit.)  Seventeen states and New York City have filed a federal lawsuit against two final rules issued by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in December that narrow the definition of “habitat” in a way that shrinks the amount of land designated as protected under the Endangered Species Act.

  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act:  National Audubon Society v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (S.D. N.Y.)  (This article has a link to the complaint.)

(New lawsuit.)  On January 19, 2021, a coalition of national environmental groups filed litigation against a move by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to eliminate longstanding protections for waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  The new regulation applies MBTA protections only to the intentional killing of birds and not “incidental” killing from industrial activities, such as oil spills and electrocutions on power lines.

OTHER

(8th Supplemental Complaint.)  On January 19, 2021, a coalition of fishing and conservation groups and the State of Oregon returned to court to challenge the latest federal plan for hydropower operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and its effects on endangered salmon and steelhead.  (Legislation has been proposed to remove the four dams that are at the heart of this litigation.)

Mexican Spotted Owl Leaders Forum Webinar

by

FYI, this cam in today…. Steve

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On behalf of the Forest Service Southwestern Region and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, you are cordially invited to attend the virtual Mexican Spotted Owl Leaders Forum Webinar.

Where: You are invited to a Zoom webinar.
When: Wednesday, March 3, 2021, 9:00 AM  – 12:00 PM Mountain Time
Topic: Regional MSO Management Strategy Overview

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81321242215?pwd=SzdFZUJBNWNTaDJQRExmUVJUaFFXQT09
Passcode: 377717

Telephone:
US: +16699006833,,81321242215#,,,,*377717#  or +12532158782,,81321242215#,,,,*377717#

Webinar ID: 813 2124 2215
Passcode: 377717

The Forest Service Southwestern Region and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed a Mexican spotted owl management strategy.  We are confident that by following this strategy and working closely with our partners that appropriate steps can be taken to improve habitat to benefit the Mexican spotted owl.  On March 3rd from 9-12 the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will host a webinar to present the six points of the Mexican spotted owl management strategy and answer questions.

Moving forward, the Forest Service recognizes that transparency with our audience is an important part of communicating and keeping track of the Mexican spotted owl’s progress. This webinar, along with some of the tools showcased and explained within the webinar, should create a broader understanding of what is being done to benefit Mexican spotted owl and its habitat.

Feel free to respond to this email with any questions or concerns, and if you are a member of the media, please RSVP.

Thank you and we look forward to seeing you there.

Forest Service Shield

Gordon Claggett, MA
Public Affairs Specialist

Forest Service

Southwestern Region

p: 443-235-5784
[email protected]

333 Broadway Blvd. SE
Albuquerque, NM 87102
www.fs.fed.us

The Biden Administration and New Opportunities for Tribal Co-Management: E&E News Story

by

Richard Sherman points out plants used in traditional Lakota medicine during a tour Friday at Badlands National Park.
Rapid City Journal Photo by Josh Morgan
Here’s an interesting story in E&E News with the headline “Tribes flex political muscle in quest to co-manage parks” .. looking more closely, it’s about all federal lands. I’ve excerpted sections about the PEER evolution in thought on this topic and the idea of the “peacemaking system.” The whole thing is worth reading, hope you all have access to E&E News. My favorite quote:

“Alternative dispute resolution, as they call it now, for us that’s not alternative,” Nez added. “That’s our original way of resolving issues in our communities. For Navajos, we call it the peacemaking system, where everybody comes in and has a seat at the table to talk things out.”

Co-management plans on federal lands could ignite thorny jurisdictional disputes among agencies. As an example, tribal projects involving forestland would have to include the Forest Service, which is part of the Department of Agriculture.

Even without such disputes, progress can come slowly, as Jarvis discovered in 2016 when the park service modified a regulation to allow tribal members to gather plants at national parks, but only for “traditional purposes.”

When he announced the change, Jarvis said it would support tribal sovereignty and the “unique cultural traditions of American Indians,” with plants used for everything from basketry to traditional medicines. To be eligible, a tribe must have “a traditional association” to certain lands within the National Park System. Any commercial uses are prohibited.

While the park service consulted with more than 120 tribes before making the change, Jarvis said NPS officials still encountered plenty of opposition from outside groups like the advocacy organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“It took nearly 15 years to get that done, in part because of opposition by organizations such as PEER,” Jarvis said.

Yet as another sign of the changed political winds, even PEER has changed its stance on co-management.

In 2017, PEER warned that co-management with tribes could conflict with the park service’s desire to protect wildlife, protected species and forests.

At the time, Jeff Ruch, who then served as PEER’s executive director and who now heads the group’s Pacific field office, headquartered in California, said the concern was that “two sovereigns under one roof is a house divided.”

“If it is true co-management, then any disagreement could lead to utter impasse,” Ruch said.

But Tim Whitehouse, PEER’s executive director since 2019, offered a much different take on the issue, saying the organization welcomes “the Biden administration’s efforts to better engage culturally diverse communities in shaping the direction of conservation and public lands policies.”

“The co-management of parks and public lands with tribes must be part of that discussion, as well as guaranteeing tribes access to their cultural lands,” he said.

Asked to explain his organization’s change of heart, Whitehouse said it was the result of “a much-needed evolution in thinking on these issues.”

I wonder whether commercial uses by Tribes would work on BLM and FS?

As longtime friends, Nez said that he and Haaland “rely on each other’s counsel for a lot of things” and that she now will get a chance to help fix “the wrongs of the past” by advancing co-management plans. He said the idea is gaining in popularity as more Americans — tribal members and non-tribal members alike — seek to be caretakers of the land.

“Look at what’s happening in California, the over-forestation,” he said. “If you would allow people to harvest firewood, that will help in cleaning up, and that way large-scale fires don’t happen. You see, that’s the perspective that Native Americans can bring to the table.”

If allowed to hunt more on public lands, Nez said: “We’re not going to kill all the animals because we as Native Americans believe that you just take what you need at the time, for instance the winter.”

And Nez said that giving tribal members more leeway to collect roots, plants and herbs from more national park sites could also help lead to medical breakthroughs, if tribes are only given the chance.

“Maybe we even have the cure for COVID-19, who knows?” he said.

As for making all this work, Nez said there’s an easy answer: consensus.

“That’s where both sides have to agree on moving into the future,” he said.

“Alternative dispute resolution, as they call it now, for us that’s not alternative,” Nez added. “That’s our original way of resolving issues in our communities. For Navajos, we call it the peacemaking system, where everybody comes in and has a seat at the table to talk things out.”

Social Science around Communities and Fire Adaptation: I. The Museum Fire and Aftermath

by

A view of a steep slope burned by the Museum Fire. Photo courtesy of Melanie Colavito, Ecological Restoration Institute
Every fire season it seems like news stories tend to quote a variety of scientists, including climate scientists, but not so much social scientists. Which in a way is odd, because the journalists always ask them questions like “what should be done?” and “what are the barriers?” which social scientists have studied across the West for decades (at least). I’m going to highlight some of these over time, and hopefully we at least will then be familiar with some of their work by next fire season. We can observe the nature and culture of communities that the studies examine; their location and physical/biological/ecological context; their proximity to universities and other scientific institutions, and other elements of interest that may influence the scientists’ findings. TSW and other folks are encouraged to send me links to such studies.

First I’ll start with this post on Catrina Edgeley and Melanie Colavito’s work in Flagstaff. This article was originally posted on the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Blog and is reproduced here with their permission. They are social scientists with the NAU Ecological Restoration Institute. I first heard about this work via a presentation Catrina gave at the SAF Convention last fall. I appreciate how they condensed their work for accessibility. The Museum fire was started by contractors’ equipment working on a fuels reduction project, so the scientists studied how that influenced peoples’ ideas about fuel treatments.

How can we harness public support for restoration and wildfire risk reduction?

Based on our survey data, high public support for active forest management seems likely to continue. How can we capitalize on this “window of opportunity” moving forward?

*Incorporate and continue community-approved approaches. Familiarity with the rationale and need for existing management activities like FWPP have built confidence in collaborative approaches. That is no small feat and took several decades to achieve in the Flagstaff area. However, now that it has become ingrained in community culture, the community is more socially resilient to fire events when they do occur. Acknowledging local support for, and continuing to invest in, collaborative approaches will be key to maintaining momentum for forest management in Flagstaff.

Collaborative community-based approaches and building trust is significant.

*Demonstrate what you’ve learned from past fires (and how you’ve implemented those lessons) to build trust. The last page of our survey allowed respondents to provide additional comments they thought might be relevant to our study. Many long-term Flagstaff residents commented that once the Museum Fire began, they clearly saw lessons learned implemented from the Schultz Fire. While newcomers and more skeptical respondents asked how professionals would use takeaways from the Museum Fire moving forward. Transparency about how a fire event advances local wildfire response within agencies and governments is key to building confidence and opening an inclusive conversation about local fire adaptation. Successful efforts to create transparency in Flagstaff have included Coconino County and Forest Service employees speaking directly with the public about changes to decision-making processes, mailing fact sheets that document updates and changes on public land to adjacent private property and acknowledging agency and organizational limitations before, during and after fire. Highlighting specific partnerships that have emerged after fire was often well-received and celebrated by members of the public in Flagstaff.

NFS Litigation Weekly February 19, 2021

by

The Forest Service summaries are here:  Litigation Weekly February 19, 2021 EMAIL

(The last summary we received was dated January 8, so we’ve missed a few things.)

Links for each case are to court documents.

COURT DECISIONS

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service (D. Utah).  On February 5, 2021, the District Court of Utah upheld the authorizations for a 400-well oil and gas development project on the Ashley NF with regard to NEPA, NFMA, Mineral Leasing Act, Roadless Rule, Clear Water Act and APA claims.

Idaho State Snowmobile Association v. U.S. Forest Service (D. Idaho).  On February 10, 2021, the District Court of Idaho reversed and remanded a travel management decision involving snowmobile access and closure of 72,447 acres of the Sawtooth NF because the research relied on did not support the conclusions about wildlife in the EA.

NEW CASES

Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service (D. Ariz.).  On January 22, 2021, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Arizona, regarding the conveyance of Oak Flat Parcel as part of the “Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Resolution Copper Mine Project” on the Tonto National Forest that was approved on January 15, 2021.

Friends of the Clearwater v. Cheryle Probert (D. Idaho).  On February 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Idaho, challenging a October 2017 Travel Planning Record of Decision, which allows motorized use along the Fish Lake Trail within a Recommended Wilderness Area on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest.

NOTICE OF INTENT

On January 26, 2021, Western Watersheds Project and Rocky Mountain Wild alleged violation the Endangered Species Act and National Forest Management Act regarding the Final Record of Decision and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Thunder Basin National Grassland 2020 Plan Amendment because of the failure to carry out programs to conserve the black-footed ferret.

OTHER CASES

Montana Environmental Information Center vs. Bernhardt (D. Montana).  On January 25, 2021, the Montana District Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction regarding the Rosebud Mine expansion in southeast Montana and its effect on the endangered pallid sturgeon. (The Forest Service is not a named party in this litigation nor are any mining operations on NFS lands. The summary was provided for information purposes.)

Price v. Barr (D. D.C.).  On January 22, 2021, the District Court entered a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against permit and fee requirements for commercial filming in a national park because they are unconstitutional under the First Amendment (as we discussed here).

Natural Resources Defense Council v. U. S. Department of the Interior (N.D. California).   On January 25, 2021, NRDC, filed a complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the Northern District of California against the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, challenging the decision to remove the gray wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species.

Seeing Through the POG: Federal Oil and Gas Leasing and the BLM Move

by

One of the things I like about Democratic administrations is that we can talk about issues without what I call a cloud of POG, or Partisan Outrage Generation. It’s hard to see through it when it is so prevalent. So I’m going to pick two issues that have aroused a great deal of concern and see what they look like without POG. Unfortunately, many media outlets and sources of journalism funding actually promote POG, so it takes some careful looking for articles to get past it.

1. Oil and gas leasing on federal lands. The WaPo had this story from November 19.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), a Biden ally, has said she would ask for an exemption from any leasing ban. Three New Mexico Democrats — Rep. Deb Haaland and Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich — are all in the running to be Biden’s interior secretary, and they have differing views on whether to prohibit new drilling on public lands and waters.

Both Udall and Heinrich have expressed reservations about a total ban. In a recent interview, Udall called for setting a goal of “carbon-neutral” public lands, where the emissions from fossil fuel extraction could be offset by reforestation and other activities that remove carbon from the atmosphere. “That’s where we should be headed,” he said.

 

I like Udall’s idea with one addition. For those of you with a historic bent it’s a bit like the National Grasslands becoming an experiment station for the best practices following the Dust Bowl. It could be an opportunity to produce fossil fuels in as environmentally sensitive a way as possible- an experimental ground for innovation. We’re going to use the stuff anyway (and perhaps help other countries convert from coal to natural gas?), so we might as well be an example as to how to do it. I’m imagining a multi-university consortium with industry to develop and test best practices. Now Udall’s bonafides are a 98% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters, so I don’t think you can attack him for being in the pocket of corporate polluters and all that familiar anti-R rhetoric.

2. Moving Some BLM Folks to Grand Junction.

This has been a target of the usual suspects; Center for Western Priorities, Grijalva, et al. Colorado Politics had this interesting POG-free article.

GRAND JUNCTION — Colorado U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper says he is urging President Joe Biden’s Interior secretary nominee to keep the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management in the Western Slope city of Grand Junction.

Hickenlooper met Tuesday with Deb Haaland, a Democratic U.S. representative from New Mexico, and invited her to western Colorado to “hear from the community firsthand” about why the public lands agency headquarters should stay, his office said in a statement.

The Democratic senator said that “I made the case that, done correctly, we can better protect and manage our public lands by having a BLM headquarters out west. I look forward to working with her when she’s confirmed as Interior Secretary to make this a reality.”

Hickenlooper sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will hold a hearing on Haaland’s nomination in the coming weeks.

The meeting came a day after Hickenlooper, Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert and Gov. Jared Polis met remotely with local officials to discuss a lobbying effort aimed at Haaland.

Too Many People Recreating: What’s a Fair Way to Permit?

by


Volunteer efforts have tried in recent years to intercept hikers at the Ice Lakes Trailhead to talk about best practices in the backcountry.
Jerry McBride/Durango Herald file
I’ve been thinking about “thought channels” in terms of a floodplain. It seems like for whatever reason, many folks are in channels. But Covid and the Biden Administration provide an opportunity for a dam release, where new ideas can be exposed , and new, possibly better, and less oppositional channels or even thousands of rivulets form. Example: old channel “on federal lands, industries are bad and recreation is good.” New set of rivulets: “on federal lands, some industries (e.g. solar and wind development) are good, and some recreation (overdoing it, not just OHV’s or MBs) is bad. Let’s look closer.

I’ve found it really hard to get out of today’s thought channels, as the folks who have power in the different channels don’t particularly want to be flooded with new ideas and partnerships and thereby lose their power. I don’t think this is conscious, but they are in a channel, like a fishbowl, where that’s the way the world looks. To my mind, we’re all trying to do good, with different ideas of what that looks like.

So thanks to Dana for submitting another story on “overrecreating” in Southern Colorado, written by the Durango Herald. I think it’s a problem in other places (based on an RVCC Zoom call), including people tromping about on private land (!) in the west, but I haven’t been able to find many news stories about it. I was on a Society for Environmental Journalists Zoom call, and only a few of those folks were interested. Others were more interested in potential violence cropping up in the Interior West due to the policies of the Biden Admin and what we might call potential Bundification (these journalists were not residents of the interior west). I continue to be fascinated by what (some) non-residents think is noteworthy about us and what concerns them.
.
What’s Going On: More Poop

All those hikers and campers take a significant toll on the alpine tundra, an already fragile landscape.

For one, hikers have been constantly going off trail, causing erosion and damage to sensitive vegetation. Campers, too, have been seen frequently having fires above tree line. And both have been known to leave behind trash.

The big issue, said Brent Schoradt, executive director of the San Juan Mountains Association, which works in partnership with the Forest Service, is people failing to pack out human waste and toilet paper.

The Ice Lakes Trail is headed toward a permit system after unprecedented high use in recent years has caused damage to the landscape.
Courtesy of MK Gunn
Over Labor Day weekend, SJMA tallied nearly 2,000 hikers and 215 overnight backpackers, and while people are encouraged to carry out their waste, it’s anyone’s guess who actually followed the rules, Schoradt said.

“In a huge use area like that, even burying your waste is not advised,” he said. “People think hiking is the lowest impact way to be out on the landscape, but with those sheer numbers, you’re still having an impact.”

Role of Social Media:

The Ice Lakes Trail has always been a popular spot for day hikers and backcountry campers, but in recent years, the power of social media has caused visitation to blow up.

Can Volunteers Help?
Shout out to the San Juan Mountains Association!

The effort was replicated again this year, albeit under a tent rather than a tiny home, and has had success in mitigating some of the impacts of having so many visitors in one area.

“We want to kill them with kindness and enhance everyone’s experience,” Schoradt said. “The last thing you want to do is give a sense that it’s a free-for-all.”

But, while the volunteers’ efforts have gone a long way to help curb some of the impacts at the Ice Lakes Trail, Forest Service officials say it’s time to increase management measures, namely, through a permit system.

There was an interesting comment about to the story..

I suggest giving priority to residents in the area and not to out of state or even out of town visitors farther than 100 miles away. Some of us moved here from out of state in order to be close to these areas and it is very unfair not to consider our requests first as property and sales tax payers who support the economy on an ongoing basis

This is definitely an out-of-the-traditional channels topic. Generally, it seems like we think “NFs belong to all Americans so everyone should have an equal chance.” But if it were a Rich Person Owned Resort with thousands of acres around a community, we might expect that the concept of “being a good neighbor” would also be involved. For example, we remember the story about Weyco in SW Oregon, in which individuals in the community were concerned that Weyco was charging for access. Is it basically some kind of property rights question?

There are also concerns regarding social equity- should poor local people get preference over better-off tourists? (Conceivably people from outside Colorado must have some money to get here and spend time). OTOH, dispersed camping costs less and may be more affordable to people coming from out of state? Or we might want to give permits preferentially to those communities who have traditionally not recreated on federal lands. What do you think?