Practice of Science Friday: II. Disciplines Over Time: Why I Miss (Traditional) Forest Economists

by

You may remember some weeks ago, I asked the question “why doesn’t California export pellets, since they have much material to remove in fuels reduction, and the BC folks seem to be doing it and making money?” Well, the first thing I did was to look at the faculty at University of California, Berkeley, where I noticed a lack of people whose CV’s would indicate that they would know. I followed the path up the coast to OSU, where the key people were once again retired. The best information I received was from the FS PNW Station (current employees) and UBC (another retired fellow). There was an active person at UW who didn’t return my email. Now I’m not saying that a lack of forest economists leads to a lack of information about economic opportunities, but the question was in my mind. Who decided not to hire people in that discipline and why? What disciplines did they pick instead? And do they ask users of scientific information (research stakeholders) when they make those decisions?

Nevertheless, there are people working assiduously on these topics so here’s a shout out to them. Here is a link to presentations from the Western Forest Economists Meeting in June of this year.

But here’s what I remember about some of them, admittedly through the rose-colored filter of nostalgia. I’d be interested in others’ thoughts.

Disagreement is Good and Welcomed

Two economist jokes that illustrate that point. “Ronald Reagan used to say that if trivial pursuit were designed by economists, it would have 100 questions and 3,000 answers.” or “President Truman once said he wants an economic adviser who is one handed. Why? Because normally the economists giving him economic advice state, “On one hand and on the other…”. (For more economist jokes, see this site)

Most of them I ran into held their opinions lightly, and gave them as opinions. Perhaps economics is a discipline that engenders humility because projections are often.. well..wrong and obviously so (think of climate models.. they may be wrong but only experts know). One of (Dr. Tom) Mills’ favorite expressions, when I worked with him, was “reasonable people could disagree” about a topic we were discussing. I don’t think I hear that expression much anymore. Perhaps because more people in forest policy come from a legal background, where people may be trained to be less overtly humble about their opinions (and use strong language about why people who disagree are wrong).

Economists As Policy Experts: Just The Facts or Assumptions

Second, at the time, forest policy was mostly the domain of forest economists. I remember an apocryphal story also about (Dr. Tom) Mills. Back in the day, there was the idea that if folks generated a large amount of information in long-term analysis projects like ICEBMP, Northwest Forest Plan and so on, that people would agree on the science and then, built on that, plus monitoring key things, this would reduce controversy and litigation about land management actions. Like I said, I heard this story and I can’t say that it’s true, that in one of those lengthy summary documents, Mills crossed out all the “shoulds”, with the argument that scientists don’t make normative claims. He was definitely swimming against the tide in the Northwest at the time.

I also remember (Dr. Richard) Haynes saying that it was interesting how different disciplines derived their knowledge claims. For example, at one point he mentioned to me that some of the wildlife biologists he was working with (on ICEBMP?) did not use sensitivity analysis on their assumptions. Sensitivity analysis being an approach when you have uncertainty and you make assumptions and you want to know how sensitive the answer is to your assumption. It seems like a good thing to do, but with no economists around, will be asking those kinds of cross-disciplinary questions?

It’s a sociology of science question as to who or what entities select research topics and approaches, which ultimately determine “what science says.” They seem to be located in funding agencies and hiring at universities (no doubt influenced by what funding is available).

NFS Litigation Weekly June 26, 2019

by

 

Forest Service summaries:  Litigation Weekly_June 26, 2019

COURT DECISIONS

The District Court of Idaho required the Forest Service to engage in formal consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) concerning the effects of 23 surface water diversions and associated ditches and facilities located in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and on the Sawtooth National Forest.  Here’s an article providing background.

The District Court of Oregon refused to enjoin the Forest Service’s Crystal Clear Restoration Project on the Mount Hood National Forest.  Additional background is here, and this case was brought up as example on this blog here.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Forest Service’s designation of at-risk forest lands under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and its approval of the Sunny South Project on the Tahoe National Forest.

LITIGATION UPDATE

The 9th Circuit denied an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal by the plaintiffs for the Miller West Fisher Project on the Kootenai National Forest.  See Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Savage in last week’s summary.

NEW CASES

The Decision Memorandum and Categorical Exclusion for the Willow Creek Vegetation Management Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest violate NEPA.  The lawsuit is discussed in this article.  (D. Mont.)

The Tenmile South Helena Timber and Vegetation Management Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest violates NFMA, the 2001 Roadless Rule and NEPA.  This is the second lawsuit against this project and it is discussed in this article.   (D. Mont.)

In Wilderness Society v. US Department of Interior, the complaint alleges that the Government violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide records requested regarding the cancellation of a proposed mineral withdrawal in the Superior National Forest near the Boundary Waters  Wilderness Area.  This article provides some background.  (D. D.C.)

 

 

 

 

 

Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019

by

Found this message in my inbox…. mentions the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, introduced in May by Rep. Ruben Gallego, (D) Arizona. “To provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System.”

Last line of the bill is the heart of it: “The Secretary shall not allow road construction, road reconstruction, or logging in an inventoried roadless area where those activities are prohibited by the Roadless Rule.”

Sounds like this prohibits thinning and other types management.

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

Steven,

Grizzly bears, bald eagles and other wildlife have thrived for centuries amid the towering trees of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Now they need our help.

The Trump administration is poised to open the Tongass up to logging, mining, road-building and other destructive development, potentially clearcutting its pristine wilderness.1

But today, we have a chance to protect the Tongass — permanently.

Tell Congress: Keep the Tongass wild.

In 2001, our national network’s staff and 1.6 million supporters helped convince the Clinton administration to protect roadless areas in national forests from logging and other development.

The principle was simple: If it’s still wild, it should stay that way.

The resulting “Roadless Rule” protected 58.5 million acres of national forest in 39 states.2 But the Trump administration is poised to remove this protection for the Tongass, putting the ancient forest and the wildlife that call it home directly in the path of logging, mining and drilling interests.3

A new bill in Congress, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, would give the Roadless Rule the full force of law. That means the Trump administration — or any future administration — would no longer have the authority to exempt the Tongass from Roadless Rule protections.4

Tell your U.S. House representative: Pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act.

The trees of the Tongass are older than America itself. The forest forms a sprawling ecosystem that is home to moose, deer, bears and more. Its rivers teem with salmon and more than 300 different species of birds perch in its branches.5,6

Our world is already running short on nature. To risk losing a place like the Tongass simply to extract just a few more resources from the earth would be a tragedy. Tell your representative to stand up for the Tongass.

Thank you for making it all possible.

Sincerely,

Celeste Meiffren-Swango
State Director

1. Elizabeth Jenkins, “Is there something for everyone in a new vision for Tongass roads?” KTOO Public Media, November 28, 2018.
2. “New Legislation Blocks New Roads On Nearly 60 Million Acres Of Public Forests,” KXRO News, May 3, 2019.
3. Elizabeth Jenkins, “New legislation introduced in Congress aims to strengthen Roadless Rule,” KTOO Public Media, May 2, 2019.
4. Elizabeth Jenkins, “New legislation introduced in Congress aims to strengthen Roadless Rule,” KTOO Public Media, May 2, 2019.
5. “Conservation: Tongass National Forest,” Audubon Alaska, accessed June 11, 2019.
6. “Tongass National Forest: Glaciers,” United States Department of Agriculture, accessed June 11, 2019.

As Towns Grow in Northern Nevada, More Unauthorized Uses of BLM Land

by

This article, from the Nevada Independent, is about increasing trespass issues as communities in Northern Nevada build out toward BLM land.

Those cases are different. Those trespasses were willful. The trespasses reported to the BLM’s Carson City District, which includes the growing region around Reno, are often accidental.

Boris Poff, an acting assistant field manager in the BLM’s Las Vegas Field Office, said that more people are reporting trespass because more people are using public land. But Poff, who works in the lands division, said he is not sure that’s correlated to an overall increase in trespass.

“[For] most people we deal with,” he said, “it’s an honest mistake.”

Poff said the agency tries to settle many of the land issues amicably. Still, the BLM’s Southern Nevada division opened up 13 trespass cases over the last year and has 21 ongoing cases.

On May 7, the Carson City District Office sent out a news release reminding residents to check land ownership rules before they build a road, fuel break, fence or other structure. But the news release also cautioned that trespassing could come with consequences, including fines. In some cases, such as when part of a house is built on federal land, the agency can require a property owner to pay the fair market value for the land. When a trespass is willful, the penalty can be twice or three times the market value for the land or the charges for using a public road.

One or two land trespasses might seem benign, but they can add up. Birdsong said there are several issues at stake for the BLM, especially if the trespass occurs in sensitive habitat, like riparian areas. He said the agency also has a responsibility to manage the land for the public. And if the agency does not enforce its rules, it could signal to bad actors that it’s open season.

Wilkins said that she suspects that many trespasses result from a lack of understanding around public land, access and right-of-ways. But it’s becoming such a problem that title companies are aware of the issue, she said. And the office is now considering educating real estate agents.

“[One] thing that we’ve been talking about is doing some educational workshops with real estate agents so that they can help their clients identify potential pitfalls,” Wilkins said. “A lot of people want to live next to public lands, but they don’t always think about the things that can happen on the adjacent public lands — dirt biking, hiking, the horse use, vegetation removal projects, fire.”

The New York Times on Rich People Buying Large Acreages in the West

by

Logs taken from the Trinchera Ranch wait to be processed at Blanca Forestry Products, a sawmill outside of Blanca, Colorado on Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2018. The mill employs some 70 people. Nathaniel Minor/CPR News[/captions] This is the mill billionaire Louis Bacon, owner of the 172,000 acre Trinchera Ranch in Colorado, built to process material from the ranch. Here’s a link to the story.

The New York Times did a story here on rich people buying up and blocking off land in the Interior West. This is not news to us, but they have some interesting perspectives. Here is the story.

Some of the new owners have been welcomed. The cable magnate, John Malone, for instance, has been praised by the Nature Conservancy for his family’s conservation efforts, and other buyers have helped to clean up trails and restore pristine acres.

The arrival of this new class of landholders comes as the region is experiencing the fastest population boom in the country, which is driving up housing prices and the cost of living and leaving many residents fearful of losing their culture and economic stability.

In Idaho, Rocky Barker, a retired columnist for The Idaho Statesman, has called the conflict a “clash between two American dreams,” pitting the nation’s respect for private property rights against the notion of a beauty-rich public estate set aside for the enjoyment of all.

The clash, he said, is part of a larger transformation of the region — from an economy rooted in extraction to one based on recreation; from a working class culture to a more moneyed one. “Big landowners,” he said, “are just another new force.”

In the intermountain West, the purchases come amid a population boom that has exacerbated local concerns about the loss of space and culture. Last year, Idaho and Nevada were the fastest growing states in the nation, followed closely by Utah, Arizona and Colorado.

These new buyers have become a symbol of a bigger problem: The gentrification of the interior West.

In 2018, more than 20,000 Californians arrived in Idaho; home prices around Boise also jumped 17 percent. This has meant not just new subdivisions and microbreweries, but also packed schools, crowded ski trails and heightened anxiety among teachers, plumbers and others, who are finding that they can no longer afford a first home.

Many landowners are engaged in conservation and have entered into easements that limit future development on their parcels, and also provide them with significant tax breaks.

But setting aside land for conservation has not always staved off criticism.

In Idaho, the Wilks brothers did more than gate a few roads. They also revoked road-use contracts that propped up the region’s multimillion-dollar snowmobile industry, shut down hunting on their land and told timber companies to pull crews from the area. About 100 people lost their jobs.

No one claimed that those actions were illegal, but they heightened fears that local residents were losing control of the region. A 2017 video of a roadside argument between an armed Wilks guard and a local ATV rider traveled quickly around the state.

What is interesting to me about this is

(1) the idea that rich people buying private land and blocking access is bad (timber, snowmobiles and ATVs), but efforts to block the same activities on public lands (e.g. a certain National Monument) are good, because it’s good for the environment and ATVers tear up the landscape and so on.

(2) Maybe “rich people ownership” is good for the environment as the property won’t be recreated upon by lots of people nor subdivided?

(3) Also, perhaps part of the reason some in San Juan County are not fans of Monumentizing Bears Ears has to do with not wanting gentrification nor a “more moneyed culture.” Here’s a link to two points of view on urban gentrification (is it saving or ruining LA). Do the arguments sound familiar?

Putting America’s forests to work on climate change: Hill Op-ed

by

Thanks much to NAFSR for their twitter feed.

Robert Bonnie was Jim Hubbard’s predecessor in the Obama Administration (I think, the Department may have reorganized). They were/are both the political appointees in charge of the Forest Service. Here are a couple of my thoughts on this op-ed. If we tried to find areas of agreement, would we find one in planting trees? Maybe folks who disagree about other things could work together on that. My other observation is that the authors don’t mention the carbon impacts of switching from wood to other construction material, and still make a case for wood products- keeping forests in forests. Below is an excerpt and here is a link.

This means we must plant more trees — a whole lot more. The U.S. Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, a report published in 2016 and written by some of the federal government’s most-experienced climate experts, called for as much as 78,000 square miles of new forests across America. Mirroring the original New Deal, we should make a dramatic “Reforest America” commitment to plant billions of trees.

As we add new forests, we must also slow the loss of existing forests to urbanization by providing incentives to landowners to conserve forests. While the amount of U.S. forestland is currently stable, projections indicate we will begin to lose millions of acres to development in the years ahead if we don’t act.

Third, policy must promote the restoration of healthy forest ecosystems, particularly on public lands. This will require a dramatic increase in the selective harvest of trees in overgrown forests and the reintroduction of natural, low-intensity fires in order to reduce carbon emissions from catastrophic wildfires, disease and pests.

Accomplishing these goals will require substantial new public investment, matched by private financing. On private lands, financial resources will be required to help landowners plant trees, conserve forests in the face of development, and manage them to increase long-term carbon storage. On National Forests and other public lands, we must provide the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies with funding to undertake large-scale forest restoration.

But, public dollars alone won’t meet the challenge. To be successful, we must expand markets for wood products in building, bioenergy and other applications. While this might seem counter-intuitive, private landowners respond to higher wood prices by planting trees and maintaining forests.

Wood markets are needed for conserving forests on public lands, too, where a century of fire exclusion has left our forests overstocked with smaller trees and thus far more vulnerable to wildfire, pests and disease. Robust wood markets can help finance restoration of National Forests and other public lands.

We need to move forward despite a vocal minority who argues that we must curtail forest management and the use of wood products to protect the climate. This approach would risk much greater carbon emissions from climate-induced forest mortality and wildfire. Reducing the demand for wood products would increase the cost of restoring forests on public land while diminishing the financial incentive for private landowners to plant, manage and conserve forests.

Forest Service withdraws largest logging, road-building project in Wyoming’s history

by

According to WildEarth Guardians:

Thanks to Guardians and allies, what would have been perhaps the largest logging and road-building project in Wyoming’s history has been withdrawn.

The Medicine Bow Landscape Analysis Vegetation (LaVA) Project covered 850,000 acres and would have logged 360,000 of them, including 123,000 acres across 25 different Roadless Areas. It would also have included building 600 miles of temporary roads, which fragment habitat and destroy water quality.

The general public has stiffly opposed the project, which was proposed in 2017. Considering its unprecedented scale, lack of detail and environmental analysis, levels of road construction, loss of wildlife habitat, effects on Roadless Areas, and lack of analysis of climate change and economic impacts, it’s certainly a major victory that the Forest Service is taking a step back.

Read the press release.

Sharon’s Guide to Understanding Scientific Papers: I. Querying the Abstract

by

In the spirit of teaching a person to fish, I’ll explain my own process for reviewing scientific papers. Because I’ve been in the forest biology/forest ecology biz for almost 50 years, it may be easier for me. But I’m hoping that curious TSW readers will be able to adapt these steps for your own use, and I’ll give you some hints to make things easier. Along the way, you’ll also find out what peer reviewers may look at, and what they don’t or can’t. I hope others will share their own methods and shortcuts.

We’ll start with the paper Jon posted here:

1. Get a copy of the paper. Some may be open-source (yay!). The next step is to go to Google Scholar and look it up. Often you will find a copy for free there. The last step is to write the corresponding author (there’s usually an envelope and an email if you hover over the list of authors) and ask for a reprint. Back in the day, we would send each other postcards and slip copies in the surface mail. This is pretty much the modern equivalent of that process. So far, no one has turned me down or not replied to an email. That’s how I got the copy I am posting so thanks to author Thom Thom et al (2019) – The climate sensitivity of carbon, timber, and species richness co-varies with forest age in boreal-temperate North America

2. Look at the abstract with an eye to data sources, methods and conclusions. What are they measuring?
(one of the most difficult things to wade through is terminology, but it has to be done).

We focused on a number of ESB indicators to (a) analyze associations among carbon storage, timber growth rate, and species richness along a forest development gradient; (b) test the sensitivity of these associations to climatic changes; and (c) identify hotspots of climate sensitivity across
the boreal–temperate forests of eastern North America.

What is “ESB”? It’s some combination of ecosystem services and biodiversity. There are many indicators of those (e.g. genetic diversity of amphibians, species diversity of insects, and so on for biodiversity). So to relate what they measured to what we know, we’ll have to dive deeper into the methods section. We may have our own experiences with carbon measurements, but not so much with species richness.

The data used was FIA and other plot information, and they used modeling to test the sensitivity to climate change. By now, you may be curious and ask “how can you tell what climate change will do? how can you tell what aspects will be sensitive?” That again, will have to wait for methods section.

Next, I look for the conclusions in the abstract:

While regions with a currently low combined ESB performance benefited from climate change, regions with a high ESB performance were particularly vulnerable to climate change. In particular, climate sensitivity was highest east and southeast of the Great Lakes, signaling potential priority areas for adaptive management. Our findings suggest that strategies aimed at enhancing the representation of older forest conditions at landscape scales will help sustain ESB in a changing world.

Then I try to paraphrase it in my own words. I came up with “if you combine indicators, the regions with low marks get higher marks after climate change and regions that have high marks now will go down, that would be east and SE of the Great Lakes.” A natural question would be “do all indicators go the same way?” “How sensitive are these findings to the way you combine them and which ones you include?”

And how does the above relate to “old forest conditions” that strategies should enhance?

3. Write down your questions. This is particularly helpful if you can’t get back to this for a day or so. In this case, my questions would be:
a) what ESB indicators did they use? It sounds like carbon, timber and species richness, but it could be others as well.
b) how did they figure out what changes would occur due to climate change?
c) how did they figure out whether an indicator was sensitive to climate change?
d) do all indicators change in the same direction and/or how sensitive are the findings to the way they are combined and which ones are in and out?
e) how does all this relate to “old forest conditions?”

Next steps will be in my next post.

NFS Litigation Weekly June 19, 2019

by

 

Forest Service summaries:  000000_2019_06_19_Litigation Weekly

COURT DECISIONS

The 9th Circuit denied an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal by the plaintiffs for the Miller West Fisher Project on the Kootenai National Forest.

The District Court of New Mexico denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration concerning the requested placement of telecommunication equipment on Tesuque Peak in the Santa Fe National Forest.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Eastern District Court of California’s March 2, 2018 order lifting the injunction on the Smokey Project on the Mendocino National Forest.

The District Court of Alaska rejected the Forest Service interpretation of the scope of easements on the Tongass National Forest, pursuant to a 2005 statute. Here is an article with more details.

The District Court of Idaho denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent construction by the Forest Service of the Stanley to Redfish Trail on a private land conservation easement in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the plaintiffs request for emergency motion for injunction pending appeal of the Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project in the Klamath National Forest.  Additional discussion of this case may be found here.

NEW CASES

The Forest Service policy allowing baiting black bears for hunting in grizzly bear habitat violates ESA and NEPA.  (D. Idaho)

The Forest Service’s decision memorandum and categorical exclusion for the North Bridger Forest Health Project on the Custer Gallatin National Forest violate NEPA.  (D. Mont.)

The Forest Service is failing to maintain public access on four trails in the Crazy Mountains on the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  This was discussed previously here.  (D. Mont.)

NOTICE OF INTENT

The decision to adopt the Warm Springs Spay Feasibility and On-Range Behavioral Outcome Assessment and Warm Springs Herd Management Area Population Management Plan in Oregon violate FLPMA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.  (D. Or.)

 

BLOGGER’S ADDITIONS

The latest step in this long-lasting case was for the District Court of Montana to deny a stay request by the Forest Service while it considers new information: “Defendants are free to withdraw or amend their decisional documents at any time. But they cannot delay ongoing litigation to shore up the administrative record or search for post-hoc rationalizations based on new information. Unless and until the documents are withdrawn or amended, Defendants must defend against the existing allegations.”

The Nez Perce Tribe threatened to sue Midas Gold Corp. under the Clean Water Act for allegedly discharging arsenic and other heavy metals into the headwaters of the South Fork of the Salmon River on lands that include the Payette National Forest.

The District of Oregon granted a temporary restraining order that will prevent Hammond Ranches, Inc., of Burns, Oregon, from grazing in two BLM-administered allotments for the next 28 days.  This was summarized here.  (Pick your version of reality.)

Practice of Science Friday: Improving Press Releases and Science Journalism

by


Last Friday I happened to be driving around and heard a well done story on Chronic Wasting Disease on Science Friday. I know that many TSW readers are interested in wildlife, so here is the link.

I’ve decided to start a new feature, based on the links for a book I’m writing on the practice of science, and (of course) how it could be improved. This feature will be called “Practice of Science Friday” and highlight a variety of studies and opinions on the practice of science. The intention will be to talk about topics relevant to the forest and climate sciences but we’ll also talk about the broader contexts of the sciences.

This week’s post is a link to an excellent piece in Vox, by a science journalist, Brian Resnick, on the puzzling problem of why science journalists publish exaggerated stories about research (hint, they copy press releases!). But rather than engaging in protracted hand-wringing, he actually has practical suggestions for how scientists can get better stories about their work. I recommend reading the whole thing.. there are many interesting examples from the health field.

To be honest, the research on how scientific press releases translate to press coverage doesn’t make my profession look all that good. It suggests that we largely just repeat whatever we’re told from the press releases, for good or for bad. It’s concerning. If we can’t evaluate the claims of press releases, how can we evaluate the merits of studies (which aren’t immune to shoddy methods and overhyped findings themselves)?

The difference between what scientists report in the studies and what journalists report in their articles can look like a game of broken telephone. A study investigating the neural underpinnings of why shopping is joyful get garbled into a piece about how your brain thinks shopping is as good as sex. A study exploring how dogs intuit human emotions, becomes “Our dogs can read our minds.”

Resnick cites a study by a fellow named Chambers:

Still, it comes to a conclusion that ought to be obvious: When universities put forth good, unhyped information, unhyped news follows. And perhaps more importantly, the researchers didn’t find evidence that these more careful press releases get less news coverage. Which should send a message: Universities don’t need to hype findings to get coverage.

“I think what we need is to establish that the responsibility [to be accurate] lies with everyone,” Chambers says. “The responsibility lies with the scientists to ensure that the press release is as accurate as possible. The responsibility lies with the press officer to ensure that they listen to the scientist. And then the science journalists need to be responsible for making sure they read the original article to the best of their ability and deflate exaggeration as much as possible that might persist despite all of our best efforts.”

As a science journalist, I’ve really appreciated it when academics have gone above and beyond to try to communicate tricky findings to the public. One of the best examples of this: Last year, when a huge, easy-to-misunderstand paper linked genetics to educational success, the researchers wrote an enormous FAQ, written in plain language, getting ahead of misconceptions. The FAQ was possibly longer than the scientific paper itself. In my interviews with researchers, I try to ask a version of the question: “What are the wrong conclusions to draw from this study?” Press releases, and other science communications from universities, could do better to include similar disclaimers in plain language.

I like the idea of FAQ’s published by the scientists.