FWS: No NSO Endangered Listing

by

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a Federal Register notice that it will not elevate the status of the northern spotted owl to Endangered from Threatened:

“After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that reclassification of the northern spotted owl from a threatened species to an endangered species is warranted but precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We will develop a proposed rule to reclassify the northern spotted owl as our priorities allow.”

This part isn’t news, bur the statement states that:

“Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the factors affecting the northern spotted owl, we find that the stressors acting on the subspecies and its habitat, particularly rangewide competition from the nonnative barred owl and high-severity wildfire, are of such imminence, intensity, and magnitude to indicate that the northern spotted owl is now in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.” [emphasis added]

 

Trillion Trees and Natural Carbon Storage Act

by

We’ve been talking about developing an actual carbon policy for forest management.  Republicans have been willing to concede that planting trees would be beneficial, but others say that is not enough.  We now have a more comprehensive bipartisan legislative proposal that is getting some attention – The Trillion Trees and Natural Carbon Storage Act.  According to the Washington Post, “The forestry proposal is the first to emerge from the Climate Solutions Caucus, which Coons and Braun launched a little more than a year ago.”  It “directs the U.S. Forest Service to set goals for how much carbon the forests, grasslands, wetlands and some coastal areas should sequester from the atmosphere.”

According to sponsor Senator Young (R-IN), among the things it would do is:

  • Requires that USDA establish objectives for increasing the net carbon stock of American forests, grasslands, wetlands, and coastal blue carbon habitats.

Young’s website provides a link to the bill.  The specific language applicable to the Forest Service is to establish within two years, “objectives for increased net carbon stock for the forest, grassland, wetland, and coastal blue carbon habitat ecosystems of the United States that are owned or managed by the Federal Government.” The objectives “shall be established at levels that assist in achieving (A) the optimally feasible and ecologically appropriate increase in the total net carbon stock.” Those objectives, “shall be based on information relating to the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of the ecosystems described in subsection (a), including maintaining or restoring ecologically appropriate forest, grassland, wetland, and blue carbon habitat structure, function, composition, and connectivity…”  That sounds like it is straight out of the 2012 Planning Rule.  There is no mention of national forest planning per se in the bill, but it is hard to see any other vehicle for implementing this policy and these objectives on national forests.

Young’s website also states that, “This legislation is supported by The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, National Audubon Society, Bipartisan Policy Center, American Forest Foundation, American Conservation Coalition, National Association of State Foresters, Conservation International, and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.”

According the Environmental Defense Fund, it “follows recommendations from climate scientists and nonprofit organizations to focus on measuring climate impact instead of number of trees planted.”  EDF’s summary:

  • Expand existing U.S. Forest Service carbon accounting to include grasslands, wetlands and coastal ecosystems, in addition to forests.
  • Ensure that forests and other ecosystems will be valued not only for harvested materials, but also for important climate mitigation functions.
  • Measure progress using “net carbon stock,” a metric that reflects the dynamic nature of ecosystems and how carbon stores can grow or shrink over time.
  • Direct the Forest Service to share expertise, including technical capacity to increase carbon stored in urban forests, with states and recipients of U.S. foreign aid.
  • Provide funding to alleviate the nation’s 1.3-million-acre backlog of reforestation projects.

One section of the bill intends to provide financing “to facilitate the sale of credits in the voluntary carbon market or other recognized environmental market…”  However (as described in the same Washington Post article linked above), carbon offsets have become an issue in relation to the nomination of Mary Nichols, the longtime head of the California Air Resources Board, to be the new director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

One central point of contention is her achievement of California’s cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions. The program allows companies to offset harmful emissions by paying for forestation or other projects that decrease gases elsewhere. But opponents say it amounts to a license to pollute with poor and minority communities bearing the brunt of environmental harms.

Carbon has also come up in relation to the nomination of Tom Vilsack to be USDA Secretary.  The chance to work on Biden’s climate agenda may have made the job more attractive for Vilsack to return.  Carbon seems to offer an interesting opportunity for the USDA to actually unite its agricultural and forestry forces behind a common goal.

Media, Divides and Talking Across Them: Some Polling and Some History

by

Both of these sources (Limerick’s history post and the webinar) talk about people in the middle.

The Colorado Media Project had an interesting webinar on “Reclaiming the Public Square: Trust, Media and Democracy in Post-Election Colorado.” I think it’s worth watching to get the views of (some) media folks on problems and solutions. The presentation by Stephen Hawkins runs from 5:06 to 18:00 and was my first introduction to More in Common

More in Common works on both short and longer term initiatives to address the underlying drivers of fracturing and polarization, and build more united, resilient and inclusive societies.

More in Common divides Americans politically into eight “Tribes” (see the chart above). Following that is a presentation about some Gallup polling that put people into three political categories (Ds, Is and R’s)(see chart above). It would be interesting to take some forest-related questions and see what different narratives might result from dividing folks who answer into three or eight categories. My guess is that eight would yield more understanding of peoples’ points of view. You don’t have to be a sociologist of science to think that how you structure the study (what groups you choose, exactly what questions you ask) can affect the answers you obtain.

Patty Limerick had an interesting idea in her “Not My First Rodeo” post History’s Essential Workers about the role of interpreters in Western history.

A Familiar Story from the Past, A Fresh Approach for the Present
As Meriwether Lewis and William Clark traveled from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean, the terrain they crossed presented an almost unfathomable variety of landforms. And yet the diversity of the languages they encountered proved far more difficult to comprehend.

At every stage of the trip, the expedition encountered a group that spoke a different language. On a few occasions, this required Clark and Lewis to engage in an early nineteenth century experimentation with what would later be called “the telephone game,” a chain of interpreters lined up to pass on a single message. In one episode when clear communication was of great importance, Lewis spoke in English to a French soldier from the expedition. The soldier then spoke in French to the expedition’s official interpreter, Toussaint Charbonneau. Charbonneau then spoke in Hidatsa to Sacagawea, who spoke in Shoshone to a leader of that tribe. And then the process reversed: Shoshone to Hidatsa to French to English.

Here’s an idea that we suspect no one else has proposed: this would be a good time to adopt his chain of translation and put it to use to our world today.

There is no mistaking our national dilemma: people who are firmly committed to one political position are unable to communicate with people who are firmly committed to an opposite political position.

Lewis and Clark offer us a promising technique.

A far-left progressive Democrat would speak to a centrist Democrat. The moderate Democrat would speak to a centrist Republican. The centrist Republican would speak to a far-right Republican, who could then offer his response to the centrist Republican, and that response would then move back along the chain.

After a few messages have traveled back and forth through the chain, the time would be right for a designated interpreter to step in. Asking everyone to pause, the interpreter could ask everyone a few debriefing questions: “What did you just hear? Was it what you expected to hear? Where do you agree and disagree? Were there parts that you simply did not understand and that need more explanation? Do you need to keep using this chain of indirection, or are you ready now to talk with each other?”

Limerick has an interesting idea but in our forest world, I’m not sure our views fall into neat political categories whether three, four as in Limerick, or eight. Thoughts?

Bloomberg Green on The Nature Conservancy and “Meaningless Carbon Offsets”

by

We’ve been talking about carbon tax credits for forest land as part of the Forest-Climate Working Group policy platform. This story is about offsets and talks about some of the difficulties determining what is really changed due to the payments. It seems to me like a government run program could have the same difficulties..

Another thing of interest about this story is that it is supposed to be “news” but comes across as not particularly unbiased. (FWIW, I’ve never been a fan of offsets). It reads more like an op-ed.
“The blistering urgency of the planet’s climate crisis is almost impossible to overstate.”
“But a review of hundreds of pages of documents underpinning those projects and interviews with a half-dozen participating landowners indicate that the Conservancy is often preserving forested lands that don’t need defending.” A half-dozen? Often? What is the total number of projects?

“The offset controversy has not deterred the Conservancy, which for years ruffled the feathers of other environmental groups for its businesslike approach and close ties to corporate partners.”

“With the window to address climate change slamming shut, many observers say the scarce resources to tackle this problem should be funneled into projects that actually result in concrete emissions reductions.”

There are also good things in the story about TNC:

The approach has produced some enormous victories. In 1998 the Nature Conservancy spent $35 million to buy pristine forests surrounding much of the 130-mile upper St. John River in Maine. A decade later it acquired 320,000 acres of forested land in Montana from a timber company before developers could get their hands on it. Each year, the Conservancy spends around $150 million purchasing land or paying for easements that shield it.

The story gives a history of offsets and talks about some of the difficulties figuring out landowners’ intentions in the short and long term. It seems so simple- paying to keep trees in the ground. You can measure the trees. Are they there or not? More difficult are questions about whether they would have been cut without the carbon payments. On the other hand, if we think about payments for ecosystem services, would we care whether the landowner intended to provide deer habitat without the payment? Or would we just say, “if you’re going to do it, we’ll pay you.” To reimburse people with original wildlife intentions, and to reward those who change. It seems fairer and more straightforward than having to prove you were not otherwise going to manage for wildlife habitat.

So perhaps the problem is with the idea of the “offset” itself- having to change behavior before it is counted, and perhaps the marketing thereof. And I don’t know whose idea that was. What if instead Disney said “we are paying landowners for carbon services” it’s still a good thing- but just not comparing tons of carbon that the company uses.

But if you get away from the ton for ton equivalence, the you might as well give up on specific solutions and do whatever floats your corporate boat. If the window is indeed “slamming shut” then we need transformative technological solutions, and if I were those corporations, the bucks should go to technology development, say, for CCS. Or perhaps for Delta, for alternative jet fuels. But I suspect their jet fuel footprint has already decreased greatly this year due to Covid.

Forest-Climate Working Group’s policy platform for the 117th Congress

by

Smokey Wire folks, I’m interested in what you think of the Forest-Climate Working Group’s policy platform for the 117th Congress, especially the legislative proposals. The group doesn’t mention an amount for boosting FIA, but they’re working on a recommended amount.

Background:

The Forest-Climate Working Group (FCWG), formed in 2007, has 58 members, including forest products companies Weyerhaeuser, Hancock Natural Resource Group and others), associations (such as the Society of American Foresters and the National Association of State Foresters), conservation organizations (the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy), forest carbon project managers (Finite Carbon, the Climate Trust), and other organizations. Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), the outdoor gear and clothing retailer, is a member.

The FCWG is guided by four key principles:

  • Climate change is real, and forests must be part of our nation’s response.
  • Keeping forests as forests is the foundation to all forest-climate solutions.
  • Forests can do even more to slow climate change if we provide the right science and financial incentives to help private forest owners and public land managers plant and re-plant forests, and manage with an eye to carbon.
  • Protecting forests from climate change is equally as important as trapping more carbon in forests. Many forest resources could be lost to the stresses of climate change, and cutting edge-science has showed that US forests will lose their capacity to store carbon, and release lots of carbon already stored, if we don’t help forests adapt.

The policy platform outlines four main goals:

  1. Maintain and expand forest cover
  2. Improve forest practices for carbon, adaptation, and resilience
  3. Advance markets for forest carbon, forest products, and skilled labor
  4. Enhance climate data and applied science

The platform also proposes five legislative actions to help accomplish the goals:

  1. Create a new Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP) with mandatory funding at $100 million annually that is in addition to funds for existing agriculture and forest easement programs.
  2. Pass the REPLANT Act, which would eliminate the cap on the Reforestation Trust Fund (RTF), currently $30 million per year, and require the US Forest Service to address the 1.3-million acre reforestation backlog within 10 years while ensuring the use of best forestry practices.
  3. Establish a transferrable tax credit to incentivize carbon sequestration in privately-owned forests, with credits provided for increased carbon sequestration.
  4. Create a new construction tax credit for building with materials with lower carbon footprint, with safeguards to ensure positive outcomes for forests and the climate.
  5. Strengthen the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program by accelerating data collection on the base grid to a 5-year remeasurement cycle nationwide, fully funded with federal appropriations, and adding additional statistical research capacity

 

Uses For Small Woody Material: I. Biochar on the Mount Hood

by
An excavator drops load of slash into the top of the TigerCat 6050 Carborator. George Plaven, Capital Press

If you agree with the claim that in some places trees and other vegetative material need to be removed for fuels reduction or removal of hazard trees, then the question becomes what to do with it? What are the alternatives to burning piles? It would be using the material in some way.

Larger material can go to a mill, if there is a mill. Many parts of the west have minimal or no mill capacity within a cost-effective distance.

Folks have been exploring alternative ways of dealing with the material, as we have outlined in other posts. Selling logs to Korea, bioenergy plants, and others. I’ve told the story before that when Boulder Colorado young innovators were thinking of ways to make products from dead lodgepole, representatives from environmental groups told them they would resist these efforts because they felt if a market developed, the Forest Service would overcut. It seems to me that there are alternative ways to deal with mistrust.. such as an agreed upon certification system that this is indeed “waste” that would otherwise be burned. We do have a history of forest certification with third party audits and chains of custody which could provide some assurance. On the other hand, certification carries no small amount of cost, and right now alternatives to burning do not always break even, let alone make a profit.

There is also the private versus federal land issue- even if markets were developed just for material from private land, that would still help out many people and governments paying for hazardous fuel mitigation. So perhaps there is no opposition from environmental groups (and perhaps support?) for development of technologies and markets for private land. Conceivably, if we have a log export ban we could also have a small material use ban. Perhaps such a ban would seem like a waste of government resources, but the Sierra Club has maintained a policy of no commercial timber sales on National Forests for many years and continues to do so.

Many people have been talking about and spent many research and technology development dollars, in the pursuit of this Small Diameter Grail for many years..my first experience was in the early 80’s, when there was talk of building a waferboard plant for dead lodgepole in Chiloquin, Oregon. And I’m sure the need existed before then. We were perhaps less aware of the negative carbon effects of burning. Climate change adaptation (need for fuel treatments) and mitigation are new concerns.

What I’ve noticed in some of the dialogue around this at the international and national level is that “biomass” is a broad category that includes energy crops, plant and animal wastes, and many other things. So it’s hard to say anything definitive because people are talking about different things at different scales, and usually not specific to a place. For this series, I’d like to focus on wood waste that is a byproduct of other activities, the most common being timber harvest and fuel treatment thinnings.

We can think about these ideas as we explore further. Today’s story is from the Capital Press, via the Forest Business Network.

ESTACADA, Ore. — An excavator rumbled over a pile of dead tree branches, limbs and woody debris in the Mt. Hood National Forest east of Estacada, Ore., where the Riverside Fire began Sept. 8 and quickly enveloped 138,054 acres.

Next to the pile sat the Tigercat 6050 carbonator, a tank-like mobile machine designed to convert organic biomass such as forest brush and slash into biochar, a carbon-rich soil amendment with serious potential for Northwest farms.

“Black gold,” remarked Kraig Kidwell, regional timber contracting officer for the U.S. Forest Service, as he grabbed a handful of grainy, jet-black biochar. “We’re taking a waste product and creating something usable.”

Kidwell watched alongside Phil Monsanto, West Zone silviculturist for the national forest, as the excavator dropped several loads of slash into the open top of the carbonator, flames barely visible as they peeked out of the vessel.

To the best of anyone’s knowledge, it is the first time federal land managers have incorporated making biochar as part of a wildfire cleanup project.

“We have so much of this slash, we just wanted to find other ways to manage it,” Monsanto said.

Ideas for New Administration: Managing for Climate Change Mitigation-Biomass With Chart and Links Fixed

by

From the 2013 Argonne National Lab study

 

Apologies to everyone and especially Mac.. I couldn’t get the links and image to work on some platforms for this so am trying various tricks, like reposting the whole thing. Thanks to folks helping me troubleshoot the problem! Please comment below if you can’t see the one link to the Argonne report nor the chart.

Here’s Mac McConnell’s idea for the new Administration:

MANAGING NATIONAL FORESTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

In 2011 the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated a program document entitled Strategic Energy Framework.
“The Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework sets direction and proactive goals for the Agency to significantly and sustainably contribute toward resolving U.S. energy resource challenges, by fostering sustainable management and use of forest and grassland energy resources.”
I write this paper in hopes of furthering these goals, focusing on the national forests’ signature resource: biomass.

Biomass

In 2013, the Argonne National Laboratory, under contract with the USFS, published a report “Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U.S. National Forest Land”. It revealed that, at that time, some 14 million acres of national forest (NF) land were highly suitable for biomass production. This resource is renewable, immense, and virtually untapped.
Should this resource be developed? The question has been raised as to whether the national forests can support a larger timber harvest. Alternatively, should the carbon remain sequestered in standing trees , thus slowing the progression of climate change? The answers can be found in the chart.

During the 31 years period ending in 2016, drastic changes took place in the management of national forest resources. Emphasis (dollars|) shifted from tangibles, such as timber, forage, and road construction and maintenance to intangibles (wilderness experience, endangered species and old growth protection) and fire management.

As a result of these factors, plus chronic under-funding, serial litigation, and over-planning and analysis, timber harvest has declined by 75% and the forests are now harvesting about 8% of their growth. Mortality due to fire, insects, and disease increased by 200%.. Net annual growth (Gross annual growth minus Mortality) decreased by 39%.

The chart makes apparent the long-term adverse impacts of virtual non-management. As trees in unmanaged forests and under stress from climate changes die in increasing numbers they no longer sequester carbon, but rather become sources of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Prudent harvesting for energy biomass uses these dead and dying and unwanted trees to replace fossil fuels while creating a healthier and more resilient timber stand. It also creates a market for presently unmerchantable material and a new job market in rural areas urgently needing economic help.

Other renewable resources

While this paper focuses on biomass, the 2013 Argonne Lab report also investigated the presence of the solar and wind energy potential on NF land.
National forest solar resources are abundant with 565,000 acres of NF land with a production capacity of 56,000 Megawatts potentially available, primarily in the Southwest.
While minor wind opportunities exist locally, the principle developable areas are located on the 17 national grasslands totally 4 million acres.

Proposed Action
I propose that the Forest Service initiate a greatly expanded program of biomass utilization focused on active participation in the development of small-scale (< 20 MW) energy projects on selected national forests. This would include assistance in siting (providing suitable land for facilities), planning, financing (grants or low-interest loans), and long-term contracts that would ensure a continuous fuel supply.

Congressional authorization and funding will allow this action to take place.

Bibliography
USDA Forest Service 1997, FIA Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service 2011, Strategic Energy Framework
USDA Forest Service 2017, FIA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service, Annual Cut and Sold Report
McConnell, W.V. (Mac). 2018. Integrated Renewable Energy from National Forests in193 Million Acres, 32 Essays on the Future of the Agency, Steve Wilent editor, Society of American Foresters,651:333-338
Zvolanek, E.; Kuiper, J.; Carr, A. & Hlava, K. Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U. S. National Forest Lands, report, December 13, 2013; Argonne, Illinois..

W.V. (Mac) McConnell is a self-styled visionary who, b(uilding on his 30 year career with the U,S. Forest Service and mellowed by 47 post retirement years in the real world,  hopes to change the way the  Service manages the peoples’ forests. He specializes in energy biomass management (short-rotation-intensive culture energy crop systems)

*Additional Note from Sharon: The Argonne study also looked at hydropower and geothermal; it’s interesting to look at the tables by forest and also the maps for concentrated solar, PV, wind, hydro and geothermal. The biomass estimates focused on logging residues and thinning. Criteria are listed on page 12 of the report.*

Planning for protection from recreation

by

This blog has discussed the effects of recreational activities on wildlife (here’s one), and whether federal land managers should be doing something different (than basically reacting to overuse).  It might be worth looking at how planning for use of newly acquired land is being done by local governments and land trusts that are interested in wildlife, and there happen to be a couple of current examples from Colorado.

Fishers Peak is a new state park near Trinidad, Colorado.  It was formerly a private ranch with very little recreational use and no trails or other developments.

“This is a property that has not been loved to death,” Dreiling says. “It’s been pretty well protected, and it’s important to us that we put recreation on this property in a wise way, in a thoughtful way. It’s an important ball that we’re not going to drop, that balance of conservation and recreation.”

In practice, that means a trail won’t be built just because it accesses the prettiest views; instead, the project partners are, for example, assessing where wildlife corridors are located and what sorts of impacts motorized vehicles could have so the public can enjoy the land inside Colorado’s second-largest state park without worrying too much about the environmental consequences. The park’s full playbook is still being drawn up, so not all of these questions have been answered, but efforts to bridge the sometimes conflicting ambitions of recreation and preservation could set a new standard for future projects—here and across the country.

Pitkin County has purchased land and granted a conservation easement to the Aspen Valley Land Trust to protect wildlife habitat.

The easement language includes a nod to a 2016 policy adopted by the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board, which states that the county shall “rely on the best available science for property-specific study of natural habitat conditions, including the role of the property in the context of larger habitat and wildlife patterns in the Roaring Fork watershed.” That policy also states that “human uses, if any, will be planned and managed to minimize intrusion into breeding/nesting areas and migration corridors … (and) minimize intrusion into the time periods and/or places of special habitat concern.”

Allowances for human use on the property are not guaranteed and would be made only after detailed studies are completed on site-specific conditions, identifying wildlife and habitat needs.

“You answer those questions first and then say what niches are left where you can integrate humans,” Will said in an interview. That could take the form of enacting seasonal closures or making specific areas of the property off-limits year-round. The management plan could take years to come together.

Of course federal lands are already developed to facilitate recreation.  This doesn’t mean they couldn’t be redeveloped (or undeveloped) where effects on wildlife have been identified.

Ideas for New Administration: Managing for Climate Change Mitigation-Biomass

by
From the 2013 Argonne National Lab study

 

Here’s Mac McConnell’s idea for the new Administration:

MANAGING NATIONAL FORESTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

In 2011 the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated a program document entitled Strategic Energy Framework.
“The Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework sets direction and proactive goals for the Agency to significantly and sustainably contribute toward resolving U.S. energy resource challenges, by fostering sustainable management and use of forest and grassland energy resources.”
I write this paper in hopes of furthering these goals, focusing on the national forests’ signature resource: biomass.

Biomass

In 2013, the Argonne National Laboratory, under contract with the USFS, published a report “Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U.S. National Forest Land”. It revealed that, at that time, some 14 million acres of national forest (NF) land were highly suitable for biomass production. This resource is renewable, immense, and virtually untapped.
Should this resource be developed? The question has been raised as to whether the national forests can support a larger timber harvest. Alternatively, should the carbon remain sequestered in standing trees , thus slowing the progression of climate change? The answers can be found in the chart.

During the 31 years period ending in 2016, drastic changes took place in the management of national forest resources. Emphasis (dollars|) shifted from tangibles, such as timber, forage, and road construction and maintenance to intangibles (wilderness experience, endangered species and old growth protection) and fire management.

As a result of these factors, plus chronic under-funding, serial litigation, and over-planning and analysis, timber harvest has declined by 75% and the forests are now harvesting about 8% of their growth. Mortality due to fire, insects, and disease increased by 200%.. Net annual growth (Gross annual growth minus Mortality) decreased by 39%.

The chart makes apparent the long-term adverse impacts of virtual non-management. As trees in unmanaged forests and under stress from climate changes die in increasing numbers they no longer sequester carbon, but rather become sources of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Prudent harvesting for energy biomass uses these dead and dying and unwanted trees to replace fossil fuels while creating a healthier and more resilient timber stand. It also creates a market for presently unmerchantable material and a new job market in rural areas urgently needing economic help.

Other renewable resources

While this paper focuses on biomass, the 2013 Argonne Lab report also investigated the presence of the solar and wind energy potential on NF land.
National forest solar resources are abundant with 565,000 acres of NF land with a production capacity of 56,000 Megawatts potentially available, primarily in the Southwest.
While minor wind opportunities exist locally, the principle developable areas are located on the 17 national grasslands totally 4 million acres.

Proposed Action
I propose that the Forest Service initiate a greatly expanded program of biomass utilization focused on active participation in the development of small-scale (< 20 MW) energy projects on selected national forests. This would include assistance in siting (providing suitable land for facilities), planning, financing (grants or low-interest loans), and long-term contracts that would ensure a continuous fuel supply.

Congressional authorization and funding will allow this action to take place.

Bibliography
USDA Forest Service 1997, FIA Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service 2011, Strategic Energy Framework
USDA Forest Service 2017, FIA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service, Annual Cut and Sold Report
McConnell, W.V. (Mac). 2018. Integrated Renewable Energy from National Forests in193 Million Acres, 32 Essays on the Future of the Agency, Steve Wilent editor, Society of American Foresters,651:333-338
Zvolanek, E.; Kuiper, J.; Carr, A. & Hlava, K. Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U. S. National Forest Lands, report, December 13, 2013; Argonne, Illinois..

W.V. (Mac) McConnell is a self-styled visionary who, b(uilding on his 30 year career with the U,S. Forest Service and mellowed by 47 post retirement years in the real world,  hopes to change the way the  Service manages the peoples’ forests. He specializes in energy biomass management (short-rotation-intensive culture energy crop systems)

*Additional Note from Sharon: The Argonne study also looked at hydropower and geothermal; it’s interesting to look at the tables by forest and also the maps for concentrated solar, PV, wind, hydro and geothermal. The biomass estimates focused on logging residues and thinning. Criteria are listed on page 12 of the report.*

Feedback Opportunities for Great American Outdoors Act Choices Closed November 30, 2020

by

Unfortunately, I missed posting about these feedback dates.  There’s always next year… I’m not sure that there’s an email list you can get on to be notified of a comment period, but if anyone knows of such a mailing list,  that would be handy. The below is from the FS national website.

Proposed Deferred Maintenance Projects for Fiscal Year 2022

Deferred maintenance projects proposed for the GAOA funding in fiscal year 2022 are open for public feedback until November 30, 2020. To review the proposed projects in your region and provide feedback, please use the following links:

R1 Project List – Northern Region
R2 Project List – Rocky Mountain Region
R3 Project List – Southwestern Region
R4 Project List – Intermountain Region
R5 Project List – Pacific Southwest Region
R6 Project List – Pacific Northwest Region
R8 Project List – Southern Region
R9 Project List – Eastern Region
R10 Project List – Alaska Region

 

Deferred Maintenance

The Forest Service will use these funds to maximize the benefits experienced by millions of Americans who visit and use their national forests and rangelands. Projects funded by this act will focus on reducing deferred maintenance and other infrastructure projects and thereby improve the conditions and resiliency of our nation’s forests for present and future generations.

To make the final selection, the agency analyzed project proposals based on seven criteria:

  • Reduce deferred maintenance
  • Promote management of America’s forests
  • Improve visitor experience
  • Contribute to rural economic development
  • Improve visitor access
  • Ensure health and safety
  • Leverage partner contributions resources

All projects funded under the GAO Act will have completed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental compliance processes.  Notice of final project selections will be provided to the public once Congress completes a full year appropriation that will include all funded projects.

FY21 Deferred Maintenance GAOA Projects

FY21 Deferred Maintenance Projects Names

 

Land and Water Conservation Fund

The Great American Outdoors Act secures $900 million in permanent funding each year for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).  LWCF programs are managed by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior.  The USDA Forest Service administers two LWCF programs – the State & Private Forestry (SPF) Forest Legacy Program and the National Forest System (NFS) Land Acquisition program – that together conserve critical and strategic lands across the Nation’s forests on both private and public ownerships.  Forest Service LWCF projects enhance recreational access to existing public lands, conserve working timberlands vital for local economies, and protect critical watersheds.

For the SPF Forest Legacy program, the agency selected projects through the following process and criteria:

  • The Forest Legacy Program works in partnership with State lead agencies.
  • Projects are selected through a two-part competitive process – state-level and then national.
  • The state level process ensures each project has local support and aligns with state priorities as identified in the State Forest Action Plans and Shared Stewardship agreements.
  • The national level process considers defined environmental and economic benefits, strategic contribution to other conservation initiatives on the landscape, and likelihood of conversion to non-forest uses.
  • Program funding is provided to states through grants to support program administration and project implementation.
  • All lands protected through this program are held and managed by the state through conservation easements or land purchases.

For the NFS Lands Acquisition program, the agency selected projects through the following process and criteria:

  • The National Forest System Lands Program works with our regional offices and partners to develop projects supporting the needs of local communities.
  • Projects are selected through a two-part competitive process – regional-level and then national.
  • The regional level process ensures each project has local support and aligns with National Forest System and partner priorities.
  • The national level process considers local needs for recreation access, urgency of the acquisition, the level of local support for the acquisition, and other criteria.

FY21 LWCF and Legacy GAOA Projects

FY21 LWCF and Legacy GAOA Projects Names

For more information about the SPF Forest Legacy program, visit:  https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/forest-legacy

For more information about the NFS Lands Acquisition program, visit: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/LWCF/