Good Industry, Bad Industry: Colorado’s Oil and Gas Legal Case

by

Photo is from this article
https://collectively.org/article/weed-who-cares-if-its-legal-its-how-they-grow-it-that-matters/
.

I’m posting this as an example of a court case that doesn’t involve the FS nor public land management but does relate to environmental policy. In some respects, it’s even odder than our FS cases as it apparently is looking to re-regulate an industry with new criteria.

This case, taken as reported by Colorado Politics here, is interesting in the light of environmental requirements for industrial activities.

In the 2013 request, the group of teenagers asked the state to deny drilling permits “unless the best available science demonstrates, and an independent third party organization confirms, that drilling can occur in a manner that does not cumulatively, with other actions, impair Colorado’s atmosphere, water, wildlife, and land resources, does not adversely impact human health and does not contribute to climate change.

The group of teenagers – with help from attorneys that represent environmental groups – took the case to Denver District Court, which sided with the state. The case was appealed, with attorneys arguing that the lower court misinterpreted the mission of the COGCC.

But why stop with the oil and gas industry? It seems to me that independent third party organizations could certify.. the outdoor industry (think of all that driving to outdoor sites), craft breweries, and so on. Perhaps Colorado should not have legalized marijuana until it met the same bar- but of course the marijuana industry uses lots of energy provided by … electrical utilities..using coal, natural gas, and renewable sources. Here’s an article about the environmental impacts of growing operations. And here’s one on the marijuana industry pushing back on control over pesticides -with potential serious harm to workers and users. Here’s another one on energy use of the developing industry- it’s really just getting started in many states.

The curious thing is that natural gas a better bridge to lower carbon energy sources than coal. It seems to me and many other that a bridge is necessary- and there are no obvious other contenders around. Energy is necessary, to raise cannabis and brew beer, and for a variety of other uses like running computers, growing crops, heating your house, and so on and I don’t see us transitioning immediately to carbon-free sources.

I guess that’s what’s odd about court cases as a method for policy development- individual cases tend to be discrete and unique (and in this case related to the mission of the Oil and Gas Commission), whereas “what kind of activities will Colorado allow that impact the environment” is a much broader question. It’s one, in my mind, better settled by open dialogue among the people and their elected officials.

U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Region has met 89% of their timber sale volume target over the past 15 years

by

If you listen to most western politicians – regardless of political party – talk about the U.S. Forest Service’s timber sale program you’ve likely heard them describe it as a failure. Many of these same politicians give the general public the impression that next to zero logging is taking place on America’s national forests because of countless lawsuits from “extremists” and “obstructionists.”

The other day, to dig a little deeper into this issue, I contacted the U.S. Forest Service Northern Region’s public affairs officer. I told her I wanted to compare the annual timber sale volume attained by the U.S. Forest Service in Montana and north Idaho with the timber sale volume targets set by the U.S. Forest Service, which are based on the funding the agency receives from Congress.

After the Forest Service’s public affairs officer and myself shared a chuckle about how terrible the U.S. Forest Service’s websites are, especially if you want to explore some of these issues in more detail, I was directed to this website.

I was told, “Look at the Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment Report (PTSAR) reports. The 4th quarter of each year is the final report for that particular fiscal year. Line T and Line U give the planned and completed targets.”

So, that’s what I did to come up with the chart above. There’s lots of ways to look at those numbers I suppose. One way is to say that overall, during the past 15 years, the U.S. Service in the Northern Region has attained 89% of their timber sale volume targets, which again are based on funding from Congress. 89% seems like a B+, if we were grading papers in school, and far from a failing grade.

Another way to look at those numbers is that in 7 of the past 15 years the U.S. Forest Service has attained between 94% and 117% of their timber sale volume targets. When is the last time you heard a U.S. senator or representative from Montana or Idaho celebrate and share numbers like this with the general public?

Also at the link provide by the Forest Service, there’s a section about “Uncut Volume Under Contract” and “Timber Sale Program Statistics.” That information was also very interesting to me, but I noticed that no link was provided. I was told by the Forest Service public affairs officer “Those links are disabled right now as the reports contained errors so we removed them.” I have to wonder what errors those reports contained and how long the errors were in those reports. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the timber industry objected to not only the specifics of what was contained in that “Uncut Volume Under Contract” report, but also perhaps objected to its presence in the first place. Hopefully the errors are corrected soon and the links go back up on the Forest Service website.

In March of 2015, the Flathead National Forest’s Joe Krueger was interviewed on Montana Public Radio about their on-going forest plan revision process. One question was specifically about the Flathead National Forest’s projected timber sale volume in their new forest plan. Krueger had this to say:

“A big factor that constrains how much wood products is coming off the [Flathead National Forest] is our existing budget. So that number of 28 million board feet of timber that we’re projecting as our timber sale quantity is constrained by budgets.”

Which brings us back to those western politicians, especially the ones who hold the U.S. taxpayer’s purse-strings and divvy up the federal budget. While practically every time any of these politicians talk about logging on National Forests they will blame lawsuits from “extremists” and “obstructionists” environmentalists for the (supposed) lack of logging, when is the last time you heard the Montana or Idaho congressional delegation call on the rest of Congress to greatly increase the U.S. Forest Service’s timber sale budget?

Seems to me that since the U.S. Forest Service in the Northern Region has managed to attain 89% of their targeted timber sale volume over the past 15 years that our political leaders should be much more honest and share this fact with the general public, and perhaps if they want to increase logging on National Forests the politicians should look in the mirror and put money where their mouth is.

NOTE: This post has been updated to include the total annual timber sale volume target in CCF, in addition to the percentage of that volume that was attained in any given year. As you can see, the timber volume targets themselves have changed over time.

In fact, the 2016 target is 72% higher than the 2002 target. And in general, the target has increased steadily over the past 15 years. This should put the 89% attainment in even greater focus, as the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Region has attained 89% of their steadily increasing timber sale volume targets over the past 15 years.

Also, corrected was incorrect date for FY 2006. Originally, I listed 44%, but upon further review that 44% was only the attainment for one national forest in the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Region, not the total attainment for the region, which in FY 2006 was actually 76%. I apologize for the error, which was in part caused by the fact that for some reason the Forest Service chart for FY 2006 lead with the individual national forests, not the region-wide totals, as all the charts from the other years did.

Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent-fire forests of the western United States?

by

A new study recently published in ECOSPHERE, an open access journal, found “found forests with higher levels of protection had lower severity values even though they are generally identified as having the highest overall levels of biomass and fuel loading.”

Here’s the Abstract, and again the full study can be viewed here.

ABSTRACT:

There is a widespread view among land managers and others that the protected status of many forestlands in the western United States corresponds with higher fire severity levels due to historical restrictions on logging that contribute to greater amounts of biomass and fuel loading in less intensively managed areas, particularly after decades of fire suppression. This view has led to recent proposals—both administrative and legislative—to reduce or eliminate forest protections and increase some forms of logging based on the belief that restrictions on active management have increased fire severity. We investigated the relationship between protected status and fire severity using the Random Forests algorithm applied to 1500 fires affecting 9.5 million hectares between 1984 and 2014 in pine (Pinus ponderosa, Pinus jeffreyi) and mixed-conifer forests of western United States, accounting for key topographic and climate variables. We found forests with higher levels of protection had lower severity values even though they are generally identified as having the highest overall levels of biomass and fuel loading. Our results suggest a need to reconsider current overly simplistic assumptions about the relationship between forest protection and fire severity in fire management and policy.

Trump’s Interior Nominee Tied to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Scientific Fraud Over Oil, Says PEER

by

In the spirit of the goal of this blog being “to solicit broad participation from a cross-section of interests in a respectful atmosphere of mutual learning on topics related to the Forest Service and public lands policy”, here’s a press release from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). – mk

Washington, DC —David Bernhardt, Trump’s nominee for Interior’s Deputy Secretary, abetted the doctoring of scientific findings about effects of oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in his first stint at Interior, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Bernhardt was the key aide to then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton when her office substantially rewrote official biological assessments to falsely downplay impacts of drilling before she transmitted them to Congress.

Back in May 2001, Senator Frank Murkowski, then Chair of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, asked Norton for Interior’s official evaluation of the impacts of oil drilling on the Porcupine caribou herd in ANWR. Norton tasked the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) with developing answers. The resulting FWS findings were then rewritten in Norton’s office when Bernhardt, one of the few political staff in her office, served as Counselor to the Secretary and Director of Congressional Affairs.

The extensive changes made by Norton’s shop were extensive and all skewed one way by:

• Changing Numbers. While FWS noted “there have been PCH [Porcupine caribou herd] calving concentrations within the 1002 Area in 27 of the last 30 years,” Interior changed that to say “Concentrated calving occurred primarily outside of the 1002 Area in 11 of the last 18 years.” [emphases added]

• Ignoring Key Data. FWS reported that calving reproductive “pauses” (years that females do not produce a calf) is higher in developed areas in Prudhoe Bay than in undisturbed areas. Interior left these data out and instead stated that “Parturition and recruitment data do not support the hypothesis that oil fields adversely affect caribou productivity.”

• Spinning Absence of Data. Norton stated that “There is no evidence that the seismic exploration activities or the drilling of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation exploratory well…have had any significant negative impact on the Porcupine caribou herd,” but she omitted the FWS disclaimer that “no studies were conducted to determine the effects of the above activities on the PCH.”

“It appears Mr. Bernhardt shares an unfortunate affinity for alternative facts,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that Bernhardt was a point person on both Arctic and petroleum issues when he was at Interior. “The Senate needs to thoroughly investigate his role in this blatant political manipulation of science before considering his nomination.”

In letters Bernhardt sent to Senators to contain fallout from PEER’s revelation of these falsifications, he sought to minimize the discrepancies, writing “we made a mistake in the letter” as if there was only one alteration. He later wrote that the FWS assessment had been “edited for responsiveness.”

“Interior is largely a science-based agency, necessitating a Deputy Secretary dedicated to scientific integrity over political spin,” added Ruch, who is asking the Senate to hold up confirmation proceedings until Bernhardt’s exact role can be determined. “It is beyond ironic that Mr. Bernhardt resurfaces at Interior just as the status of safeguards for the Arctic Refuge is revisited.”

###

Read PEER’s letter to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee

View the changes Interior made to Arctic assessment

Look at Bernhardt’s damage control letters to Senators

See the letter FWS transmitted to Norton

Compare how it emerged from Norton

The spotted owl in the context of, well, owls in general

by

The current issue (May 25th, 2017) of the New York Review of Books contains a review of two books on owls, penned by reviewer Robert O. Paxton (I didn’t know, BTW, that he was an “owlologist” – try saying that fast 25 times! – or an “owlophile”).  Anyhow, there wasn’t much on the spotted owl and the timber controversy of the U.S. Northwest therein.  But I thought I’d pass along what there was, FYI:

“Efforts to protect one species of North American owl became an issue in the 1992 presidential election. President George H.W. Bush warned that if environmentalists like vice-presidential candidate Al Gore got their way, “we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.” The owl in question was the spotted owl, a midsized forest owl of the Pacific Northwest that disappears when old-growth forest is cut. Efforts to preserve old-growth forest for the bird infuriated workers in the declining lumber industry. They sported bumper stickers that read “shoot an owl, save a logger.” The issue has now subsided, mostly because the loggers, having lost the “spotted owl war,” found other work or other homes.

“Today the few spotted owls that remain in the United States (they are nearly gone from Canada) have a new enemy. The closely related but more aggressive barred owl, abundant in the eastern United States, is expanding into the Pacific Northwest, where it pushes out the slightly smaller spotted owl. The US Forest Service has been discreetly culling barred owls in that region. Even so, the spotted owl could become the first North American owl to go extinct.”

Wildlife in Managed Forests

by

In a previous post titled “The response of the forest to drought” the questions led to the opportunity to bring us up to date on the current state of elk and the role that sound forest management can play. Here are some quotes from various sources some of which contradict what we have heard on this site regarding the need for dense cover:

A) “Wildlife in Managed Forests” – Elk and Deer – 2013, Oregon Forest Resources Institute
1) Page 2 – “Preferred forest habitat age: All forest ages, but most heavily associated with young stands where food is most abundant.”
2) Page 10 – “These results suggest that current commercial forestry practices are compatible with maintenance of ungulate forage species.”
3) Page 11 – ““For land managers who are interested in increasing healthy elk populations, their focus would be better spent on providing forage opportunities rather than cover.””
4) Page 13 – “Forage quality in late spring and summer is key to successful reproduction.” … “Elk prefer and will select certain highly nutritious and palatable plant species when they can get them.
These species, mostly in the forage classes of grasses, sedges, annual forbs and deciduous shrubs, provide a more concentrated source of energy than the less-preferred ferns, evergreen shrubs and conifers”
5) Page 14 – “Limited timber harvest on USFS lands since the implementation of the NW Forest Plan and social, political and legal mandates associated with late successional species have resulted in less early seral habitat on large contiguous tracts of USFS lands.”
6) Page 15 – “Where the objective is to provide landscapes with mosaics of early and advanced seral stages for elk, the effort will have to be ongoing in perpetuity and thus will be most effective if integrated in long-term management plans where habitat needs of elk are tied to forest manipulations”
7) “Land managers whose objectives include providing habitat and forage for deer and elk may want to consider the following silvicultural treatments:
• Where thinning is prescribed, thin timber stands to or below 50 percent crown closure to allow sufficient sunlight to reach the ground surface for early seral vegetation to become established.
• Retain any natural meadows and openings and remove encroaching conifers from these open areas. Note that power-line easements make great openings and often provide habitat for deer and elk.
• In thinned stands, create gaps of 1 to 5 acres on sites with east, south or west solar aspect and slopes less than 30 percent and away from open roads.
• In created gaps, plant a few native shrubs that provide fruit, nuts, berries or browse for wildlife.
• Seed all disturbed soil including skid trails, yarding corridors, landings and decommissioned roads with a seed mix of native grass and forb species that will provide high forage value for deer, elk and other species. These management prescriptions may not make sense for all landowners or all landscapes, but they will work in some areas to help provide habitat for deer and elk.”

B) From the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation we have 13 Bizarre Elk Facts That Most Hunters Don’t Know:
• “old trees are actually hurting elk populations.
“Our forest lands, whether on public or private land, are overstuffed with trees,” he told me over the phone. “The American public just loves trees, but in the forest where the elk live, too many trees block sunlight from getting to the forest floor. We’re not growing grasses and forbs, which are key to elk nutrition.”
What is needed are young forests, also known as early-successional habitats, that allow elk herds to thrive. Opening up tree-choked landscapes promotes the growth of low-lying vegetation, which are beneficial to elk and other wildlife.
“We’d like to see a lot more biodiversity out there so we’re really trying to encourage more thinning and more prescribed burning,” Tom said. “It’s not just for elk. There are a wide variety of bird species, small animal species, and big game animals that really benefit from the habitat work we do for elk.””

C) From the Forestry Source by Steve Wilent – Page 2 May 2014 “Embracing the Young Forest”:
1) “The Northwest Forest Plan’s was to secure late successional stands for the spotted owl … Now the battle is being waged … for … the inhabitants of the youngest forests.”
2) “In the Northeast and upper Midwest we documented 65 species … that were declining because of the loss of young forest habitat.”

To conclude this post let me repeat, one more time, that Single Species Management such as for the NSO and the 14 million acres set aside to “preserve” its habitat is having a far ranging negative impact on countless other species including elk. Single Species Management isn’t even working for the NSO as mentioned many times before (more details to come at a later date in response to a question from Jon Haber in a previous discussion thread on this blog site). Contrary to the opinion expressed by some on this blog site, sound forest management in the form of more small (~40 to ~200 acres) early seral regeneration openings and thinnings with included similar sized patches of stands near the maximum target density more evenly distributed throughout the forest would improve forage while providing cover from prey. Extensive contiguous acreages of dense conifers are counter productive to increasing or sustaining elk populations. Which is to say that those who focus on single species management and especially on late successional habitat (i.e. old growth) have forgotten about the importance of edge effect in wildlife management and the importance of maintaining a balanced age distribution of stands to replace the old growth which, no matter how hard you try, can’t be “preserved” in its current state over the long term. Heterogeneity/diversity is preferable to large contiguous acreages of homogeneity for all species in the long run.

Forest Service Litigation Weeklies April 28 and May 5, 2017

by

Complete listings are in pdfs attached below.
April 28
1. Range & Wildlife I Region 5
Sierra Forest Legacy and Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center submitted a Notice of Intent to Sue (N01) for claimed violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Stanislaus National Forest. The NOl claims that the authorization of livestock grazing in the habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad are agency actions that are illegal under the ESA.

On June 16, 2014, the Forest Service requested formal consultation as to the effects of its actions on the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad. On December 19, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Programmatic Biological Opinion (Prgm. BiOp) which found that the species were threatened by livestock grazing. As a result, the Prgm. BiOp stated that the Forest Service must establish a monitoring program to determine if and how well certain conservation measures minimize effects to the listed species and their habitats.
According to the NOI, for the 2014 and 2015 grazing seasons, Sierra Forest Legacy, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, and others “have provided evidence to the Forest Service and FWS demonstrating lack of monitoring, overgrazed meadows, degraded special aquatic features, and degraded stability along stream reaches where the natural streambank and streambed stability have been pocked, chiseled, sloughed, and otherwise damaged by livestock.” Additionally, the NOI claims that the effects of climate change and the spread of Chytridiomycosis constitutes new information that was not previously considered. This evidence and new information, according to the NOI, demonstrates that the Forest Service must reinitiate of consultation.

May 5

1. Timber I Region 1 If a Tree Might Fall in the Woods
The District Court of Idaho rejected a motion for preliminary injunction against the Tower and Grizzly Fires Salvage Projects, both of which relied on the Chief’s authority to invoke an Emergency Situation Determination (ESD), on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Farnsworth. Wildfires in 2015 burned 47,500 acres, resulting in two proposed timber salvage sales that were expedited using an ESD, which would allow for projects to bypass the 90-day objection period and implement the projects immediately. Time was of the essence because the burned trees would depreciate in value quickly. The Chief issued Emergency Situation Determinations, followed by the forest issuing a Decision Notice with the Environmental Assessment. Alliance for the Wild Rockies brought five NEPA-based claims.
Using the “sliding scale standard” of the four-factor Winter test for a preliminary injunction, under which a party may have a lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits when it shows a stronger likelihood of suffering irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injection. It found that the plaintiffs failed to raise serious questions as to three of their five claims.
The Chief may issue an Emergency Situation Determination under 36 C.F.R. §218.21(b) for:
• Relief from hazards threatening human health and safety;
• mitigation of threats to natural resources on NFS or adjacent lands; or
• avoiding a loss of commodity value sufficient to jeopardize the agency’s ability to accomplish project objectives directly related to resource protection or restoration
In finding that the first and third triggers were properly invoked, the court noted that these projects posed a threat to human safety where there were burned trees along snowmobile trails, and there was nearly $3 million in value at risk. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the projects were not necessary because hazardous dead trees would be removed even without the sales, because the no-action alternative provided removal of the dead trees. The court noted that this argument merely confirmed that a hazard is present, which is one of the three triggers for allowing and ESD. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s challenge to valuation estimates, noting that the real risk was finding a bidder at all.

Wildlife I Region 4 If a goat is in the forest, does it require NEPA?
Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit a District of Utah decision favorable to the Forest Service in Utah Native Plant Society et al v. United States Forest Service et al.
Reported in the Litigation Weekly on March 10, 2017, the District Court ruled favorably for the Forest Service on National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claims against the presence of mountain goats in the Mount Peal Research Natural Area in the Manti-La Sal National Forest. Plaintiffs claimed the Forest Service violated NFMA and NEPA by refusing to take action to manage the goats’ occupation of the forest, neglecting to require the State to obtain a special-use permit for introducing the goats to land adjacent to the National Forest, and failing to conduct an environmental analysis. The court, however, found that the Forest Service did not engage in any agency action so was not required to undergo any NEPA analysis and that to require the State to obtain a special-use permit “would disregard the Forest Service’s duty to work cooperatively with the State to manage wildlife.” (16-056, D. Utah)

Land Use & Wildlife I Region 1 Don’t want no CE’s round here...
Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the District of Montana against the Smith Creek Vegetation Management Project on the Custer Gallatin National Forest, a portion of the Clean-Up Amendment for the Forest Plan, the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (Lynx Amendment), and the May 20, 2014 landscape-scale insect and disease designation for Montana under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act in Native Ecosystems Council et al v. Erickson et al. The complaint alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2. Resources & Land Use I Region 9 Two agencies fer one lawsuit
Plaintiffs filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) claiming the agencies failed to comply with NEPA when authorizing oil and gas leasing in the Wayne National Forest’s Marietta Unit in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. U.S. Forest Service et al.

Litigation Weekly 4_28_2017 (1)

Notice of Intent Stanislaus Forest

Litigation Weekly 5_06_2017

CBD v FS

Utah Native Plant Society v FS

Alliance Wild Rockies v Farnsworth

Alliance Wild Rockies v Farnsworth

by

A recent court decision, Alliance Wild Rockies v Farnsworth, is interesting in that the court denied a suit aimed at halting salvage logging in Montana. The conclusion of B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, United States District Court, is unusual for its commentary:

Conclusion

In the West, fuel and climate are combining to create intense wildfires. Fuels are increasing at an alarming rate as invasive plant species spread across the landscape, while at the same time climate change is lengthening the fire season. This means burnt timber is becoming a major feature of our National Forests. If trees can be logged simply because they burned, we will reap massive clear-cuts. But small projects, fully vetted and properly designed to mitigate impacts, may be valuable in reducing hazards and funding reforestation efforts. The Tower and Grizzly Projects fit that mold. Under the particular facts of this case, the Court cannot find that Alliance has raised the serious questions necessary to obtain injunctive relief. For that reason, the Court will deny Alliance’s motion.

 

 

 

The response of the forest to drought

by

This post provides some on the ground research and consistent but separate modeling results that demonstrate the importance of stand density in coping with climate change and therefore the importance of sustainable forest management. Hopefully this will change some minds on the importance of strategically managing density.

A) The response of the forest to drought: the role of stand density and species diversity This article is an attempt to quantify previously established science.

1) “Droughts affect wood formation through the reduction in photosynthetic rates due to stomatal closure, reducing the amount of carbohydrates available for building new cells.”

2) “used tree-ring data from long-term forest plots of two pine species, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and red pine (Pinus resinosa). The experiments were distributed in different geographical areas in the USA and they covered a large aridity gradient. They quantified growth responses at the population level to express both resistance and resilience to drought in relation to the relative tree population density, finding out that reducing densities would enhance both growth responses to drought. Trees growing in denser populations were more negatively impacted by drought and this has been shown in all three biogeographical areas.”
NOTE from “Climate Change Research Focuses on Great Lakes Forests”: “ASCC is monitoring the growth, health and survival rates of the trees in these forests, and focusing on three key qualities: resistance, resilience and transition. Resistance measures a species’ ability to remain stable and productive in a drought situation, resilience is a tree’s ability to return to normal productivity after experiencing an environmental change and transition refers to circumstances that encourage ecosystems to adapt to changing conditions.”

3) “This study confirms once more that the vulnerability of monospecific coniferous forests to increasing drought can be reduced through thinning interventions, which represent a viable adaptation strategy under climate change.”

4) “investigated the drought response of 16 individual tree species in different regions of Europe and evaluated if this was related to species diversity and stand density. Based on previous findings indicating that combining species with complementary characteristics is more important than simply increasing species diversity to cope with drought, their results indicate that species growing in a mixture are not always less water stressed than those growing in monoculture.”
See also: a) “Species composition determines resistance to drought in dry forests of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence forest region of central Ontario” b) “SPECIES RICHNESS AND STAND STABILITY IN CONIFER FORESTS OF THE SIERRA NEVADA” c) “Functional diversity enhances silver fir growth resilience to an extreme drought”

5) “Investigating these effects at the level of species identity (i.e., different combinations of species) is more advisable than doing it at the level of species richness (i.e., abundance of species), because different mixtures respond differently depending on the region. If we consider that different provenances of the same species can show different adaptation strategies to cope with drought, the situation may be even more complex.”

B) Ecosystem services, mountain forests and climate change
Note: This modeling effort passes the #1 smell test in that it agrees with already established scientific principles while adding quantitative measures that support the previously known trend but shouldn’t be taken as absolutes.

1) “it is estimated that about half of the global human population depends – directly or indirectly – on services delivered by mountain forests. It is therefore essential to assess whether multiple ecosystem services can be provided to human societies in the future. Given that climate is changing fast, the consideration of climate change in scientific assessments is a must! Let’s not forget that European forests are managed since centuries (check out this nice book about the history of European forests). Thus, changes in management regimes must be considered as well.”

2) “in the Iberian Mountains their simulation results indicate that forest management, rather than climate change, is responsible for a reduction in carbon storage and biodiversity. On the contrary, in Western Alps changes in climatic regimes could induces large alterations in the supply of several ecosystem services, particularly under the most pessimistic future climate scenarios. In other areas (e.g., in the Slovenian Dinaric Mountains) climate change would strongly affect ecosystem services, albeit differently depending on elevation and stand conditions.”

3) “This confirms that management is a strong driver of forest dynamics in European mountains, and it can highly modify the future provision of ecosystem services (i.e., more than the direct effects of climate change!).”

Reorganizing the Federal Government and Why Does Wyden Care So Much About BLM/FS?

by

here. Norman’s comment reminded me of this piece I read about FS and BLM coordination/reorganization, that describes how Senator Wyden is against “senseless reorganization”. Since I personally think it makes a lot of sense (as opposed to senseless), I was curious as to why he cared.. since the last time this was proposed that I remember from Oregon (Interchange, Reagan Administration), it seemed to me like it was Republican ranchers who opposed it at that time. Do any Oregonians have any ideas for why Wyden has these ideas?

Here’s the story from Wildfire Today.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden was more vocal than most and expressed his displeasure with the proposal. When the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted on Rep. Zinke’s confirmation as Secretary of the Interior on January 31, Senator Wyden abstained, citing the movement of the FS as a problem. Rep. Zinke was approved in the committee on a vote of 16-6-1 (yes-no-abstain).

A source we talked with on Capitol Hill who asked to remain anonymous told us that after the committee vote Senator Wyden extracted a pledge from Rep. Zinke that if confirmed as Secretary, he would not pursue reorganizing the FS. With that promise, on March 1 the Senator voted for the confirmation in the full Senate.

Just after that vote, the Senator issued a statement, saying in part:

After several discussions, I received an assurance that as secretary of the Interior, Rep. Zinke will focus on doing his job, which includes protecting our special places and managing the forests already within the Interior Department’s control, instead of engaging in senseless reorganization of bureaucracies.
Our Capitol Hill source said now that Secretary Zinke is on the job, he still can’t completely let go of the desire to move the FS.

In fact, when the Secretary spoke before the Public Lands Council on March 28, he talked about a “joint command” of the FS according to E&E news:

“I may not get the Forest Service, but we’re going to work with the Forest Service and figure out how to not be so stove-piped,” the Interior chief said. Zinke indicated that he and Agriculture secretary nominee Sonny Perdue had discussed a “joint command” model like the ones used by the Pentagon to manage personnel across the military services.
Secretary Zinke may be thinking that this arrangement would not violate his promise to Senator Wyden. However, the Senator expressly mentioned he did not want to see “senseless reorganization of bureaucracies”.