Science Friday: Science-Based Policies- How My Views Have Changed in (Almost) 20 Years

by

It seems like the concept of “science-based” decisions gets thrown around a lot these days even more than when I wrote this Perspective for Journal of Forestry in 2002 below. I was the Chair of the Forest Science and Technology Board at the Society of American Foresters at the time. I used the homey soup analogy to (subtly?) query the patriarchal bias of scientific claims to authority. Nowadays, though, science-based seems like it has become a buzzword, in some cases with overtones of partisan politics and/or technocracy. As in “science-based” is good, “political” is bad. The implication is that values of (some disciplines of) scientists (perhaps not economists, for example) are good, and values of politicians (and therefore folks who elected them) can be/are bad, or at least highly questionable. I don’t think science-olatry is good for public discourse, nor for the well-being of scientists engaged in their work. Anyway, here’s the Perspective.

When we use the term “science-based,” I think we really mean that we would like decisions to be informed by the most-current, highest-quality scientific information. Using the term “science- based” can be misleading, as it implies that “science” is the foundation for the decision; in fact, people choose practices that best meet their values. Scientific and other types of information should inform the decision maker of the effects of different choices.

To me, making good resource management policy is both an art and a science. For policymakers or decisionmakers, it’s a little like making lentil soup. They have tasty bits—the research articles, legal expertise, indigenous and practitioner knowledge, and monitoring information. They want each bit to be of sufficient quality, so they ask us scientists or other experts (the lentil and sausage specialists) for our advice. The process of turning informational ingredients into policy soup has well-developed sciences to support it— the decision sciences. Researchers in these fields examine the processes for making decisions and how information can best be used in those decisions in a variety of contexts. Without quality decision science information and quality policy practitioners, taking information from all the disciplines can result in a tasteless jumble rather than a mouthwatering delight.

Potentially even more dangerous is putting the lentil and sausage specialists to work in the kitchen. Since we scientists and other specialists tend to love our particular bit, we tend to overestimate the importance of that bit to the soup, and have an inherent conflict of interest in the soup’s development.

I agree with my colleague Bob Lee at University of Washington that the beauty and attraction of science is that it “gives us rules that protect us from the all-too-human tendency to fool ourselves, either individually or collectively.” But because all policy issues cross disciplines, the only truly “scientific” claim for the policy product is that of the decision sciences. I believe that in addition to quality ingredients, our best bet for a nutritious and delicious policy soup is civil public debate of competing knowledge claims, improving our decision science capacity, and a structured way to learn from our policy practitioners who dependably deliver quality products.

In the last twenty years, I’ve become less sanguine about the decision sciences as a tool to get disciplines to work together in a transparent and structured way. There are still folks in the science and technology studies field who are working on this, though, and we’ll visit some of them next week. Since then, I’ve also become less sure as to whether policy products can be assessed to find out whether they are successful or not (as in “what’s a good decision?”). But I’m still keen on civil public debate of competing knowledge claims.

Time for USFS to Curtail Idaho’s Wolf Slaughter in Wilderness Areas

by

This is a guest column from George Nickas of Wilderness Watch. 

It’s time for the U.S. Forest Service to put a stop to the state of Idaho’s relentless quest to kill as many wolves as it can on our public lands in Idaho, including in wildernesses.

Since being stripped of Endangered Species Act protections and having their “management” turned over to the states, thousands of gray wolves have been needlessly killed on public lands and wilderness areas across Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. But Idaho’s Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is carrying out its war on wolves to a grotesque extreme.

Witness IDFG’s recent boasting — in a news release, no less — that using low-flying aerial gunships it chased down 17 wolves and executed them in the Lolo-Clearwater country adjacent to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

But that’s only the latest in a long string of such actions taken by the state. And here’s the thing: on national forests — federal lands that belong to all of us — IDFG can’t do this on its own, it needs “partners.” In this case, Idaho’s extermination efforts are being aided or abetted by the Forest Service (FS). Consider this.

In 2013, IDFG hired a professional trapper to wipe out as many wolves as possible in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (RONRW). Incredibly, the FS regional forester in Ogden, Utah, went along with this plan, giving the trapper use of a Forest Service cabin for his base. Wilderness Watch and other conservation groups filed a lawsuit and, as a result, Idaho pulled the trapper from the wilderness before the courts could rule, but not before he killed nearly a dozen wolves.

But that isn’t the end of the story. IDFG has a plan to eliminate 60% of wolves in the heart of the RONRW, and it devised an unlawful helicopter-assisted elk-collaring project to initiate it. The plan was simple, though not straightforward. Use helicopters to capture and collar elk, document that wolves killed some elk, then use that info to justify killing wolves. The Forest Service should have said “no,” but instead the regional forester in Ogden again played lackey to IDFG and authorized their plan.

Thanks to another lawsuit by Wilderness Watch and our allies, a federal judge saw what the Forest Service apparently couldn’t — that the project violated the Wilderness Act. But before IDFG could be stopped in court, it had collared the elk plus four wolves it wasn’t authorized to target.

Then there’s the case of aerial gunning mentioned above. It’s the eighth time in the last nine years that IDFG’s helicopter-riding gunners have attempted to wipe out wolves in a large part of the Clearwater National Forest. The FS regional forester in Missoula could intervene, but like her predecessors she just turns a blind eye to the plight of the wolves and the wild ecosystems where they live.

Still not satisfied in its blood lust, Idaho in 2020 has lengthened all of its wolf hunting and trapping seasons in Wildernesses and other national forest lands, and it increased wolf-killing quotas to an obscene 30 wolves per hunter and trapper yearly. Again, Forest Service officials sit idly by, despite having the responsibility to protect the wilderness character of the region’s wildernesses and despite having the authority to intervene.

Why does Idaho have such a maniacal obsession with killing wolves? Because wolves have the audacity to eat elk that IDFG believes exist only for elk hunters. Never mind the ecological and moral bankruptcy of that mindset, it’s not likely to change without intervention.

Let’s be crystal clear: By not standing up to IDFG, the Forest Service is complicit in the ongoing slaughter of wolves within federal Wildernesses and national forests across the state.

The Forest Service has the authority to stop IDFG’s attempts to exterminate wolves on our national forests, and it’s long past time it did.

George Nickas is the executive director of Wilderness Watch, a national conservation organization based in Missoula.

U.S. Forest Service denies Minnesota request for unreleased research on copper mining impacts

by

Essentially, the U.S. Forest Service has told the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to go jump in a lake.

The Star Tribune has the story.

The U.S. Forest Service has denied Minnesota’s request for the research from an aborted federal study about the impacts of copper mining on the Superior National Forest and its Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner Sarah Strommen requested the unreleased research in a letter last month to Bob Lueckel, regional head of the Forest Service in Milwaukee. Her agency needs the research, she wrote, because it is in charge of doing an in-depth environmental review of the copper-nickel mine plan that Twin Metals Minnesota has submitted.

Lueckel responded that the Forest Service study was never completed, reviewed or formally approved and so it won’t give Minnesota the information.

“Not only are the incomplete data and documents deliberative pre-decision materials, but also reliance on potentially irrelevant and unreviewed data and analyses will only hinder our collective efforts to develop a sound environmental analysis of the current proposal,” Lueckel wrote in his letter, dated April 13.

DNR assistant commissioner Jess Richards, who provided a copy of the letter, called the situation “complex.”

“The DNR has not yet determined how we will respond to the USFS letter nor any implications their response may have to our review of the Twin Metals proposal,” Richards said in an interview.

The DNR is early in the process of scoping out what the environmental impact statement will cover. Twin Metals submitted its formal plan for a $1 billion copper-nickel mine just outside the Boundary Waters in December.

The U.S. Forest Service and its umbrella agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have defied multiple demands to release the study and its backup materials, including a request from U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., chairwoman of a key funding subcommittee. It released 60 blacked-out pages to the Wilderness Society only after that organization sued.

The Forest Service study was nixed in Sept. 2018 after nearly two years of work. The USDA said the analysis didn’t reveal anything new and was a “roadblock” to minerals exploration in the Rainy River Watershed.

That was shortly after the Trump administration reinstated two Twin Metals mineral leases, resurrecting the copper-mine project after the Obama administration refused to renew the leases because of the project’s risk to the Boundary Waters.

A federal judge has upheld the Trump administration’s decision to reinstate the leases.

Alison Flint, senior legal director for the Wilderness Society, called the Forest Service’s denial disappointing but not “surprising.”

“The Trump administration has gone to extreme ends to bury the canceled withdrawal study and keep its findings from the public,” Flint said.

“As for the rationale that a publicly funded, science-based environmental assessment that was yanked at the 11th hour is somehow privileged, we will battle that one out in court,” she said. “The public, the state of Minnesota, Congress, and other decisionmakers must have access to the information that was prepared with taxpayer dollars by dedicated resource experts at the Forest Service.”

In an e-mail response, McCollum declared that the Forest Service report “will clearly demonstrate that sulfide-ore copper mining in the Superior National Forest will destroy the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.”

“The Minnesota DNR should not spend even one dollar of state taxpayer funds reviewing the Twin Metals project until this report is made public,” she said.

Tom Landwehr, executive director of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, called the Forest Service response “extremely disappointing.”

“Is this the right place for a mine at all? That’s what that document was intending to answer,” Landwehr said. “Without that information we are jumping to the middle of the board game ignoring the first critical steps.” 

National Forest Covid Timber Sale Extensions: A Few Views

by

Credit Esther Honig / Harvest Public Media
Sawmills are more high-tech than they used to be. At Montrose (Colorado), working as efficiently as possible helps the facility compete directly with Canada.
Let’s look at the idea of timber contract extensions due to Coronavirus. First, let’s look at the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition.
I first ran across these folks when Tyson Bertone-Riggs spoke on a WGA panel, and since then I’ve been impressed by their work. This is from their April Newsletter.

Timber Markets

Another emerging issue is the risk that the slowdown of the timber market poses to our industry partners. Although the Department of Homeland Security considers the wood products industry “critical infrastructure” and is still allowed to operate, the reduced market for wood products is a threat to the financial stability of many logging companies and mills. While the Department of Agriculture has issued a Finding of Significant Overriding Interest to grant extensions to timber sale contracts, the same grace has not yet been granted to purchasers who hold stewardship contracting “integrated resource stewardship contracts” (IRSC). In a normal year one of the benefits of an IRSC is that it requires implementation on a faster timeline than a traditional timber sale contract, but such a requirement is not feasible under the current circumstances. RVCC has urged Department and agency leadership to extend the same contracting extensions to industry partners involved in stewardship contracts.

The second is an article by Bobby Magill of Bloomberg Press titled “More Logging in National Forests on Trump Anti-Virus Agenda.” Despite the headline, which sounds like it’s not really about the extension, it’s worth reading. One of the tags is “Environmentalists see move as a back-door approach to prop up industry.” I don’t know how “back-door” it is… Anyway, I think it might be an interesting media analysis experiment. I’d be interested in cases where environmental groups are interviewed about other Covid efforts to support industries. I haven’t seen it for the marijuana industry nor the recreation industry, and we don’t usually talk about “propping up” industries who are suffering right now. I thought we’d left the Darwinian capitalism model in the Covid dust.

Jim Furnish is quoted:

The contract extensions are “very unusual” but “innocuous,” said Jim Furnish, who served as Forest Service deputy chief in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Timber contracts have time limits when timber must be removed from national forests, or the contractor loses the right to cut trees, Furnish said. When circumstances occur beyond a timber company’s control, it’s the Forest Service’s responsibility to provide relief, he said.

“This is a concession to industry so as not to do further harm as related to their contractual obligations,” Furnish said.

But the administration is playing favorites, being generous to the timber industry while doing nothing yet to support other industries that rely on national forests, including recreation, said Josh Hicks, assistant director for policy and planning for the Wilderness Society.

“I would like to think that the administration would be trying to find ways to be supportive of all the different stakeholders and members of the public during the pandemic, not making sure that a single industry is being taken care of,” Hicks said.

I’m having trouble thinking what that would look like (the equivalent of timber sale extensions), since I don’t know the ins and outs of recreation permitting. Allowing more people per permit when outfitter-guiding opens back up? Concessionaires extending their permits or raising prices?

NSO Back in the News

by

Excerpt from the Herald and News, Klamath Falls, Oregon….

Federal Government agrees to reevaluate Northern Spotted Owl habitat after Supreme Court ruling

A coalition representing counties, business and labor has reached an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will initiate a public regulatory rulemaking process for reevaluating critical habitat designated for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to a news release.

The agreement was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and is subject to court approval.

The agreement is related to a unanimous 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision finding the ESA does not authorize the government to designate lands as critical habitat unless it is in fact habitat for the species. The Supreme Court also ruled that courts can review government evaluations of the impact of designating critical habitat, which the lower courts had refused to allow for over 30 years.

The coalition brought legal action after the Fish and Wildlife Service designated 9.5 million acres of mostly federal lands as NSO critical habitat across Washington, Oregon and Northern California in 2012. This was 38 percent more than was set aside in 1992 following the listing of the NSO. The coalition’s legal action focused on the inclusion of millions of acres of forests not occupied by the species, including over 1.1 million acres of federal lands designated for active forest management activities and where no owls are present.

More….

Let’s Talk About Specific CE’s in the Rissien Report: III. Pine Valley Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project

by
Front page of CE documentation.

This CE is particularly interesting because the scientific basis for treatment is right upfront.

The TNC analysis used a reference baseline concept referred to as Natural Range of Variability (NRV) to look at ecological departure for each ecological system on the district. The current condition of ecological systems was derived using the metric known as Unified Ecological Departure. This is a single measure that integrates concepts of: (1) ecological departure in the traditional sense, (2) high risk vegetation classes, and (3) acceptable amounts of certain unharmful or benign uncharacteristic vegetation classes. Twelve ecological systems on the
district were selected for simulations of likely future conditions under various regimes of active management.
Nine of these systems are brought forward in this analysis (Table 1 and Figure 1). A full breakdown of ecological departure by structural stage for each of the nine systems is available in Appendix 2.

How Many Acres?

320,000 acres are under review for treatments including the 250,000 acres in IRA outside of wilderness areas. Treatments would not occur in areas where vegetation is within a desired NRV or in areas where it is determined that restoration would not be successful.

Note: The TNC analysis maps show where treatments are outside NRV.

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for the proposed project include:
 Improve and/or maintain wildlife habitat across the Pine Valley Ranger District including habitat for Threatened and Endangered species, Forest sensitive species and Forest focal species and species of concern (California condor, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, Townsend big-eared bat, spotted bat, elk, mule deer, wild turkey, flicker, grey vireo, broad-tailed humming bird, Virginia’s warbler and brewer’s sparrow).
 Improve and/or maintain stand conditions in mature and old growth pinyon-juniper stands.
 Restore ecosystem composition and/or structure, to reduce the risks of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, and to conditions within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period (36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1)).

Note: the last bullet is language directly from the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Proposed Action

Based on findings from the Landscape Conservation Forecasting and project design features (Table 2) the Dixie NF proposes the following actions to improve wildlife habitat and select vegetation community conditions on the Pine Valley Ranger District:
1. Trend vegetation communities towards the Natural Range of Variability (NRV) as identified in the TNC Landscape Forecasting report (2014) using the most appropriate tool or suite of tools such as: mastication, harrow, seeding (rangeland drill and/or aerial), chipping, lop and scatter, cut/pile, and prescribed burning.

2. Modify existing conditions to improve wildlife habitat and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire across the landscape by manipulating vegetation age class and species diversity distribution across the project area.

There are 32 pages of detailed documentation, including design criteria. I didn’t see anything about later site-specific analysis on this one. Page numbers would have been helpful.

Again, here is the plain English of this category: 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6) “Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction”. This one seems to fit wildlife habitat improvement. Would you agree with the use of the category if they did the same activities in the same places, but had documentation and scoping separate for each site? Would you agree if they took some activities (say PB) and used a different category for PB? Based on this reading I don’t see any timber harvest (not pinyon or juniper).

Let’s go back to the way the news story was written: “Under this administration, there’s really only one goal and that’s measured in board-feet,” Rissien said. Uh..I wouldn’t go looking for board feet in PJ in Region 4, myself.

Here’s another quote: “Rissien and others question how the Forest Service can know that such large projects won’t have detrimental environmental effects. By using a CE, the Forest Service doesn’t have to conduct an environmental study, so the public has no information to know if the forest or wildlife is affected.” I’m just pointing out that the condensed info in these CE’s, that is the three we’ve looked at so far, is equivalent to that required in an EA. From CEQ’s guidance here:

While the regulations do not contain page limits for EA’s, the Council has generally advised agencies to keep the length of EAs to not more than approximately 10-15 pages. Some agencies expressly provide page guidelines (e.g., 10-15 pages in the case of the Army Corps). To avoid undue length, the EA may incorporate by reference background data to support its concise
discussion of the proposal and relevant issues.

New Forest Service “Wildfire Risk to Communities” Website

by
This is an example of the mapping for Seeley Lake MT

Kevin Vogler sent in this announcement:

Here’s a link to www.WildfireRisk.org that the USFS rolled out this afternoon:

Wildfire Risk to Communities is a free, easy-to-use website with interactive maps, charts, and resources to help communities understand, explore, and reduce wildfire risk. It was created by the USDA Forest Service under the direction of Congress and is designed to help community leaders, such as elected officials, community planners, and fire managers. This is the first time wildfire risk to communities has been mapped nationally with consistent methodology. Unlike other risk assessments that may focus on multiple values at risk, this analysis was designed to provide information related to the risk to homes and other buildings.

The highest mission priority for the Forest Service is sustaining our ability for wildfire management and emergency response. This interactive website provides valuable information on what communities can take to mitigate wildfire risks.

It’s always interesting to look at your favorite areas on the maps. I forwarded this to my county planning department in case they hadn’t seen it.

NFS Litigation Weekly April 10, 2020

by

Here’s the Forest Service summary:  Litigation Weekly April 10_2020_Final_Email

COURT DECISIONS

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Forest Service’s decision to not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Crystal Clear Restoration Project on Mount Hood National Forest was arbitrary and capricious – as described in more detail here.

UPDATES

(Front Range Equine Rescue v. Christiansen)  The plaintiffs requested dismissal of the complaints in the District Court of Northern California concerning the gathering of wild horses on the Modoc National Forest based on the new provision in the 2020 Interior-EPA Federal Budget authorization that prohibits the sale of wild horses without limitation (i.e. for slaughter) by the Forest Service.

(Rocky Mountain Wild v. Dallas) The District Court of Colorado issued an order granting a partial motion to dismiss concerning ANILCA in favor of the Forest Service concerning the Village of Wolf Creek Access 2019 Record of Decision (2019 ROD) on the Rio Grande National Forest.

NEW CASES

(Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Service)  The plaintiff filed a complaint in the District of Montana concerning the authorization of the Elk Smith Project on The Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest and the programmatic ESA consultation for the wolverine.

(Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt)  The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service concerning the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, which plaintiffs allege unlawfully impacts the grizzly bear.  (Here’s CBD’s press release, and here’s another summary.)

NOTICE OF INTENT

Alliance for the Wild Rockies claims the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act regarding alleged violations of road restrictions over the prior five-year period on the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest and has not properly consulted on the effects on grizzly bears.  (Here’s a local news article.)

The Center for Biological Diversity intends to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service concerning the expansion of the Lee Canyon Ski Area on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest regarding its effects on the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly.

The Center for Biological Diversity also intends to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service concerning region-wide restoration project impacts on the Mexican Spotted Owl in Region 3.

 

BLOGGER’S BONUS

  • Ten-mile South Helena Project

(Update)  We’ve talked about this case a few times, including here, where the State of Montana’s intervention was mentioned.  The role of intervenors in settlements has come up before and I ran across this court’s treatment of that request in this case:

In granting the motion for intervention as a matter of right, the Court advises Montana that, while it may participate in settlement negotiations with the parties should such negotiations take place, its status as Defendant-Intervenor does not carry with it the right to prevent any settlement of plaintiffs’ or consolidated plaintiffs’ claims from occurring…

A preliminary injunction was denied in October.  Here is the plaintiff’s recent perspective on the ongoing project:

  “How does the Forest Service justify bulldozing new roads where they are not supposed to be?  Only by saying, “this feature is not a road.”

(New case against FWS.)  The Center for Biological Diversity and others have sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing (again) to protect wolverines as required by the Endangered Species Act.  Read more here.

  • Iron Mask sagebrush/juniper project

(Continuation of an existing case against BLM.)  According the Alliance for the Wild Rockies,

“The federal court agreed and halted the project last year because the BLM’s analysis was limited to the theoretical positive effects but did not analyze the overwhelming negative effects of burning sagebrush-juniper habitat on wildlife. Ignoring the court’s order, the Trump administration now wants to go forward to benefit a few cattle ranchers without analyzing the damage their project will have on public lands and a wide variety of native wildlife.

(Court decision involving EPA.)  The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the EPA must ensure that its science advisory committees are sufficiently balanced so that they can provide independent advice.

(Potential lawsuit.)  Monroe County, Indiana has approved the use of its attorneys to challenge a project on the Hoosier National Forest that could affect its municipal watershed.

(New case against FWS.)  The Buffalo Field Campaign, Friends of Animals, and Western Watersheds Project have sued the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for determining that the bison (which seasonally uses a portion of the Custer-Gallatin National Forest) does not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act.

(Court decision involving BLM.)  In a case involving the State of California and other plaintiffs, the Trump administration didn’t break the law when it scrapped an Obama-era regulation for fracking on public and tribal lands.

Two Coronavirus Stories: Changes to Fire Management: R-2 Regional Forester on Current Recreation and Fire Safety Precautions

by

This photo is of Florida Forest Service (not the feds) training on March 8.
Here’s an AP story about wildfire suppression folks and what they’re doing. It covers several different topics so it’s worth it to read the whole thing, but here’s a sample excerpt:

Wildfires have already broken out in Texas and Florida, and agencies are scrambling to finish plans for a new approach. They are considering waivers for some training requirements to previously-certified crew members, and moving some training online.

Other proposals include limiting fire engines to a driver and one passenger, requiring other crew members to ride in additional vehicles. They may scrap the normal campsite catering tents in favor of military-issue MREs, or “Meals Ready to Eat” to reduce touching serving utensils.

Federal resources for firefighting efforts may be more scarce, leaving states to deal with more fires.

In light of the “unprecedented challenge” of the pandemic, Forest Service resources will be used “only when there is a reasonable expectation of success in protecting life and critical property and infrastructure,” says Forest Service Chief Victoria Christiansen.

Meanwhile, here’s a link to a current press release by Region 2 that involves both recreation and fire safety (I just quoted the recreation safety, but here is a link to the entire press release).

“While we know that going outside provides forest and grassland visitors needed space, exercise and satisfaction, we are taking the risks presented by COVID-19 seriously,” said Eberlien. “We are providing some recreation opportunities where we can while protecting and keeping employees, the public and our communities safe from the virus, as well as protecting and keeping communities and natural and cultural resources safe from unwanted human-caused wildfires.”
Recreation Closures
Developed recreation sites are temporarily closed while dispersed camping, hiking and river uses are allowed, although discouraged. Closed developed recreation sites include campgrounds, day-use areas, picnic areas, and any other constructed facility amenities – such as potable water stations, fire rings/grills, picnic tables, restroom facilities with flush or vaulted toilets, and trashcans and trash collection services. Parking facilities, trails and trailheads remain open. Dispersed camping includes camping on a national forest or grassland where recreation facilities or services are not provided.
Forest and grassland visitors camping in dispersed recreation sites, hiking or embarking on river activities are
encouraged to adhere to the following safety and responsibility guidelines.
• Stay close to home to keep other communities safe.
• Stay 6 feet apart from others.
• Avoid crowding in parking lots, trails, scenic overlooks and other areas.
• Take CDC precautions to prevent illnesses like COVID-19.
• Prepare for limited or no services, such as restroom facilities and garbage collection.
• Prepare to pack out trash and human waste.

I wonder whether all Regions are taking the same approach? FWIW, the people I observed last week at an uncrowded Forest Service trail (all ten or so we saw in four hours) appeared to be following the precautions.

Study: Mature forests may be limited in their ability to absorb “extra” carbon dioxide

by

We’ve discussed this issue in several threads, such as here. A new study by a large group of researchers, recently published in Nature, looks at the ability of mature trees to absorb CO2. The conclusion is that “additional carbon uptake did not lead to increased carbon sequestration at the ecosystem level. Instead, the majority of the extra carbon was emitted back into the atmosphere via several respiratory fluxes, with increased soil respiration alone accounting for half of the total uptake surplus.”

An open-access companion article, “Mature forest shows little increase in carbon uptake in a CO2-enriched atmosphere,” adds perspective and discusses the need to additional research.