Wyden’s Bill Preview (?)

by

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this Preview. I received on an email trail that supposedly starts from Wyden’s office. I am as likely as the next person to be bamboozled. Still, just in case, I thought it worth sharing. As I reformatted this from the email, I had many thoughts, but I will reserve them until I find out for sure that it’s not an elaborate and brilliantly crafted hoax.

For too long, Oregon’s 2.1 million acres of O&C grant lands have been ground zero for the battle between those seeking to halt logging in the Northwest and those seeking to return to the unsustainable logging levels of a bygone era.

This legislation would end the gridlock by using science to guide management of the O&C lands, roughly doubling timber harvests over the next 10 years compared to the last 10 years and providing certainty for local communities. At the same time, this bill will permanently protect old growth trees, ensure habitat for sensitive species, and put in place strong safeguards for drinking water and fish.

This bill amends the Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield
Management Act of 1937, so the O&C Grant Lands in 18 Oregon counties are
managed to foster long-term forest and environmental health while producing
sustainable levels of timber.

It achieves these goals and resolves longstanding land management disputes by separating the Oregon and California Grant Lands into roughly equal “forestry emphasis” and “conservation emphasis” areas.

Ensuring Predictable and Sustainable Timber Harvests
The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide a long-term sustained yield of timber in forestry emphasis areas, using forestry principles developed by Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, two highly respected Northwest scientists. It includes specific directions for managing dry and moist forests. In forestry emphasis areas, sustainable timber production is a clear management priority, eliminating the uncertainty and conflicting direction that have contributed to the decline in forest management on O&C lands.

Over the past decade, harvests have averaged 149.5 million board feet per year, and were at just 167 million board feet in 2012, according to the BLM. Even that low level is likely to fall off by more than 30% in about a decade, according to the agency’s projections. The status quo, thinning only approach leads to only about 115 million board feet of harvests in about 10 years, unless the agency can move forward with a new strategy for the O&C forests. This bill represents a new strategy that works and can become law.

This strategy takes the most controversial harvests off the table. It ensures that:
● Old growth stands over 120 years old and trees over 150 years old cannot be harvested.

● Timber harvests and thinning projects cannot significantly impact stream
quality, fish, highly erodible land, wetlands, endangered or threatened
species, or tribal cultural sites.

● Spotted owl nest trees are protected and harvests that may impact endangered species require coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Moist Forests

● Harvests must retain 30 percent of the original trees in a stand. Trees along streams can count toward this 30 percent, but any old growth trees protected are above and beyond this threshold. The remaining trees are to be no uniformly spaced throughout a stand, ensuring more natural distribution of trees.

● Stands in the moist forests will be harvested when the average age of the
trees in the stand reach 80 to 120 years of age.

● Continues thinning projects that leave more than 50 percent of trees in stands.

Dry Forests

● Resiliency to fire is the management emphasis for dry forest stands.

● Harvesting to reduce the density of trees in dry forests is promoted;
however, one third of all of the dry forests must be selected to remain as
denser landscape scale patches for endangered species.

● Harvesting must ensure the oldest 35 percent of the trees in an area remain after the operation.

● Provides new flexibility for county governments to reduce fire danger within half a mile of homes, and private landowners to within 100 feet of their own homes.

Streamlining Environmental Reviews

This bill would cut environmental and court reviews of proposed timber sales nearly in half, taking commonsense steps to streamline review procedures, while maintaining environmental laws.

While federal Environmental Impact Statements take an average of 3.6 years,
according to one study, this bill would require the BLM to finalize its O&C
environmental impact statements within 18 months after the bill becomes law.

First, it streamlines the timelines for environmental and judicial reviews;

Second, it eliminates the individual environmental impact statements for each timber sale, and replaces them with two large-scale environmental impact statements – one each for dry and moist forests – that examine 10years’ worth of timber sales on O&C lands;

Third, it requires frontloaded coordination between federal agencies during
environmental reviews; and Fourth, it requires upfront studies of areas to prioritize treatments.

● The streamlined EIS procedures continue to allow for judicial review, but
eliminate unnecessary delays by setting strict, but achievable deadlines. For example, the draft Environmental Impact Statements must be released within a year of enactment, and finalized within 18 months of enactment.

● Lawsuits must be filed no later than 30 days after a final decision is made by the BLM. In addition, only those who participated in the BLM comment
process and raised their objections are eligible to file suit. An expedited court procedure requires trials to begin within 180 days, to ensure lawsuits are heard in a timely manner.

● Once the 10year EIS is finalized, the BLM must simply document that a
proposed project meets the criteria analyzed in the EIS, rather than
conducting a project specific environmental review. Projects may only be challenged on the grounds that they failed to conform with the EIS.

● Eliminates the time consuming “survey and manage” requirements of the
Northwest Forest Plan on the forestry emphasis areas of the O&C lands.

● The US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will conduct a five year check in, to ensure operations and impacts to species follow the original EIS.

● This bill leaves the Endangered Species Act untouched, and the habitat for
the plants and animals that the Endangered Species Act protects are managed
to help try to recover these species.

Protecting Streams, Drinking Water and Fish

The bill creates the first specific legislative protections for aquatic areas and watersheds on O&C lands, by requiring the BLM to protect and restore water quality for drinking water and aquatic species in streams and lakes.

● It protects water quality for all O&C lands. In forestry emphasis areas,
riparian reserves would encompass an area 150 feet from streams containing fish, and 75 feet from other streams. The modified reserves allow for greater timber harvests, while maintaining habitat and water quality protections.

● Within those reserves, thinning is allowed to improve forest and stream
health. Thinning is allowed for trees under 80 years old in moist forests,
and for trees under 150 years in dry forests. An additional buffer of 75
feet on streams without fish can be used for sustainable harvests in stands
less than 80 years of age.

● In conservation emphasis areas, riparian reserves are permanently protected under the same approach currently used under the Northwest
Forest Plan.

● Watershed assessments will be conducted to identify streams most in
need of protection. Riparian reserves can be adjusted based on those
assessments.

● Permanent road construction is prohibited in key watersheds, and the
BLM is directed to generally decrease the quantity of roads on its lands.

● Sets aside $1 million per year for transporting and placing large trees in
streams to improve water quality and fish habitat.

● To speed up restoration accomplishments, the following clearly beneficial
restoration activities are excluded from analysis typically required by
NEPA: Placing trees in streams to benefit fish species, planting of native
trees along streams, replacing culverts that prevent fish from migrating,
and removal of user created roads.

● The removal of excess roads on BLM lands is a priority. A new “Legacy
Roads and Trails” program is created for these lands and is authorized to
spend $5 million annually.

Management in the Conservation Areas

Conservation areas will be managed for general conservation benefits, including old growth protection, watershed health, native wildlife, climate management, recreation, and tourism.

● In the conservation areas, road building with limited exceptions and
mineral development is prohibited. Timber harvests are allowed, but are
limited to those that improve habitat and forest health. This is achieved by
thinning and retaining older and larger trees.

Portions of the conservation areas will be designated for more specific management and additional protections:

● Oregon Treasures: Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion (56,400 acres),
Rogue River Wild and Scenic Rivers expansion (93 miles), Molalla
Recreational River designation (15.1 miles), Table Rock Fork Recreational
River designation (6.2 miles), Chetco Wild and Scenic River update

● Devil’s Staircase Wilderness: 30,540 acres

● Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Expansion: 5,700 acres

● Illinois Valley Salmon and Botanical Area: 16,300 acres

● Recreation and Backcountry Areas: Rogue National Recreation Area
(nearly 95,000 acres); Molalla National Recreation Area (24,000 acres);
Pacific Crest Trail Protection Corridor (8,200 acres); Primitive
Backcountry Areas: Grizzly Peak (3,000 acres), Dakubetede (27,700
acres), Wellington Wildlands (5,700 acres), Mungers Butte (9,800 acres),
Brummitt Fir (1,500 acres), Crabtree Valley (2,000 acres)

● Drinking Water Special Management Units (total acres: 47,000):
McKenzie, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and Springfield Drinking Water Special
Management Units.

● Special Environmental Zones: 95,600 acres of current or proposed
BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

● Wild and Scenic Rivers (total miles: 47): Nestucca River, Walker Creek,
North Fork Silver Creek, Lobster Creek, Jenny Creek, Spring Creek,
Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek

Increasing Revenues for Counties

The revenues generated from the sale of timber from these lands will be shared with the counties and pay for the cost of managing the lands, without increasing the federal deficit.

● Every county is guaranteed at least as much funding as it would have
received under the O&C Act of 1937, if it had elected to receive those funds
in Fiscal Year 2013.

● The BLM will receive 25 percent of revenues – up to $20 million – to fund
management of the O&C lands.

● Each year, $4 million of the revenue generated from timber harvests will go to the U.S. Treasury, to prevent an increase in the federal deficit.

● The remaining revenue shall be paid annually to the O&C counties.

● If there is insufficient revenue to meet the county’s minimum payment,
money will be taken from the U.S. Treasury payment and then the BLM
administrative repayment to cover the balance.

Consolidating the Checkerboard of Land Ownership

The bill provides new ways to consolidate land ownership and reduce the
checkerboard of public and private lands. Within six months of the date of
enactment, BLM will identify lands suitable for sale or exchange with private or state owned lands. BLM is authorized to sell or exchange Federal land in order to consolidate land in an effort to improve management efficiency and productivity or to improve the ecological value of conservation areas.

● BLM will sell a portion of the acres it identifies or has previously identified for disposal and use the revenue from the sales to purchase land near to BLM holdings.

● If land in forest emphasis areas is sold, the land purchased with these funds will be managed as a forest emphasis area. Sales of conservation emphasis area lands shall be used to purchase lands for conservation emphasis.

Additional provisions

● This Act sets aside 50,000 acres for special joint management and research
by the BLM and Oregon State University and other institutions of higher
education. The Secretary will choose lands near Oregon State University
from both the timber emphasis areas and the conservation areas. The lands
will be managed to conduct ecological forestry demonstration projects,
research and monitor suspected impacts, and produce timber. If the land fails to be actively managed, it will revert back to management by the BLM.

● Land is restored to two Oregon tribes: the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua
Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
nds may not be used for gaming, and commercial forestry activities on these lands must follow applicable federal laws, and there will be no net loss of O&C lands.

● Management restrictions on the Coquille Tribe’s lands are lifted to make their treatment equal to other tribal” (sorry that’s the way the email ended).

USDA Gets A for Plain Writing

by

plain language

As a veteran of several bouts of regulation writing, I think the idea in the Government Executive piece below for plain English regulation is great. I always suggested we start with the policy ideas in plain English, get those hashed out, and then convert to legalisms required in rule language. Unfortunately, that’s not the way it goes, so policy issues get worked out in each word, sentence and paragraph, bouncing around in agreements with different internal and external actors until a regulation is almost incomprehensible (and not necessarily internally consistent).

I think it’s an experiment worth trying, anyway. During one round of one regulation, we attempted to get all the people in the room and finalize various policy calls, but politicking went on after that with different players (whoops, did not send the right people to the meeting). The nature of people influencing rulemaking may make it impossible for clarity, except perhaps for a project with a timeline of infinity ;).

From an FS source:

For this year’s Plain Writing report card USDA received a grade of A for compliance with the Act and a grade of B for demonstrating clear writing principles, which matched our grades in the 2012 report card. Surely the Forest Service played a role in those grades, though I also see the Department received a ClearMark Merit Award for its online plain writing course (https://aglearn.usda.gov/customcontent/OES/OES-PlainWriting-web/Player/launchPlayer.html?courseID=1455&courseCode=USDA-PWTR01) and APHIS received an Award of Distinction for its “Hungry Pest” outreach materials (http://www.hungrypests.com/partner-tools/HP-Brochure-FL.pdf)

And the piece from Government Executive:

Analysis: The High Cost of Gobbledygook

By Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa

November 19, 2013

Do you experience a creeping sense of dread when a letter arrives in the mail from a government agency or before you sign an official government form? Do you find yourself asking, “What does this mean?” or “What happens if I’m mistaken?”

You are not alone. Confusing language is frustrating. But beyond our frustration are real consequences if we misunderstand government documents and regulations. Confusing language leads to mistakes that have dramatic consequences for our health, safety and financial security. Think of the ramifications of failing to understand changes in our mortgages, or being confused by Medicare prescription drug information, or not having enough income taxes withheld from our paycheck.

Confusing government language also places a tremendous financial burden on individuals, businesses and taxpayers. When we don’t understand the letter we got explaining that our interest rates are going up or telling us what our new health care plan covers, we pick up the phone and call the help center. It takes labor, money and time to fix problems created when people are confused.

Busy call centers are just one hidden cost of confusing language. The National Small Business Association has estimated that businesses with fewer than 20 employees pay an extra $7,600 per employee annually to comply with confusing regulations.

There’s a lot of disagreement in Washington about the scope of government – whether certain regulations or even whole agencies should even exist. But regardless of where you fall on the partisan spectrum, I think we can all agree that if a government regulation, rule, form or document exists, it should be written in language that can be understood by the intended audience.

Fortunately, there’s a movement building among good government groups and concerned Americans to reform the way the government communicates with American citizens. Together, we’ve championed two proposals that would save taxpayers billions of dollars and instill more confidence in government.

In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Plain Writing Act, legislation I wrote that requires federal agencies to write public documents in easy-to-understand language.

This week, the Center for Plain Language released its second “Plain Writing Report Card,” grading federal agencies on their efforts to implement the requirements of the Plain Writing Act. The report card predictably identified a reluctance by federal agencies to change ingrained habits. Several agencies are lagging far behind the requirements of the law. But progress is being made.

The Center also just opened nominations for its 2014 ClearMark Awards, applauding examples of plain writing at its best. (The Center also awards the WonderMark Award, a sort of “Razzie” award designed to shame the worst of the worst.)

The next frontier for reform is the Plain Regulations Act, legislation that would expand plain writing requirements to federal rules and regulations. Federal regulations are often the worst violators of plain writing best practices. We’re working to build momentum behind this common-sense proposal and remain hopeful about the possibility of passing this bill into law.

You deserve to receive information from federal agencies in language you can understand. Join the plain language movement today, and insist on clearer communication tomorrow.

Click here to view the 2013 Plain Writing Report Card.

Here’s a related TED Talk by Alan Siegel.

Forest Service Webinar on Planning for Growth and Open Space Conservation

by

USDA Forest Service webinar on community wildfire protection planning

US FOrest ServiceThe USDA Forest Service is currently offering a “Planning for Growth and Open Space Conservation” webinar series for natural resource professionals, land use planners, private landowners and others to learn from experts about issues facing our open lands.

In Session #19: Community Wildfire Protection Planning; three experts discuss how wildfires have become more intense and frequent due to the lack of forest management, fire management, legacy forest policy and climate change. During this session three experts discuss what planners and communities need to know to reduce risks of wildfire.

You can find this webinar on the list here.

Assemblages, Ecosystems and Change: Chapter 4, Virtual Book Club

by

One of the topics addressed in Chapter 4 is Margaret Davis’ pollen work (pages 80-82 in the hardcopy edition). We people who study trees are familiar with the ideas of how different species came back from their refugia during glaciation, and how different assemblages of species have occurred through time. Many different groups of plants and animals have existed in different combinations on any particular piece of land through time. Changes can be due to changes in soil (e.g., Mt. St. Helens), changes in human activities (e.g., Appalachian “market-induced succession”) or invasive species (e.g., Chestnut blight) and changes are always going on (e.g., climate, development, etc.).

When I worked for the Forest Service, people would talk about how “ecosystems have evolved” and I would ask “what is the mechanism for an “ecosystem” to evolve?” If I had one critique with the ideas in Dan’s book, it is that he did not go far enough in talking about the Emperor’s missing clothes. Just reifying an “ecosystem” places natural phenomena within a human idea context and makes it possible to say all kinds of fuzzy things about an “ecosystem”. I think people use it as shorthand for more complex ideas, but the problem is that it lacks specificity and clarity.

I just ran across one this morning, that policies need to address “fire’s role in forest ecosystems.” My first question would be “fire’s role as to what aspect of plants, animals, water, soil and air?” Fire’s role, like climate or anything else, is not a constant. I like this quote from the book:
P 85. ..

we find that nature undisturbed is not constant in form, structure or proportion but change at every scale of time and space. The old idea of a static landscape, like a single musical chord sounded foresver, must be abandoned, for such a landscape never existed except in our imagination. Nature undisturbed by human influence seems more like a symphony whose harmonies arise from variation and change over many scales of time and space, changing with individual births and deaths, local disruptions and recoveries, larger-scale responses to climate from one glacial age to another, and to the slower alterations of soils and yet larger variations between glacial ages.

If you have been a reader and writer of Forest Service regulations lately, the “form, structure or proportion” will call back to your memory perhaps “ecosystem composition, structure and function”:

2012 Planning Rule: Alternative A would require plan components to provide for the maintenance or restoration of the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area.

2001 and Colorado Roadless Rule: Tree cutting, sale, or removal is needed to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure and processes.

These statements, in regulation, imply that certain characteristics should be “maintained or restored”; that is, maintained as they are today, or restored to what they used to be (yes, I realize that some in the FS is talking that “restoration” doesn’t mean that, it really means “resilience to change”, but English is English, and if you mean that you should put in in regulation, IMHO.)

Now, scientists reviewed all these regulations and did not say “hey, that doesn’t take into account current scientific thought, because there is no one unchanging way that composition structure and function is “supposed to be” and that “needs to be” maintained or restored.” I think in Dan’s book, he is again asking the question “if science tells us that everything is changing, why do scientists (including ecologists, I assume) review and accept regulations and other policies that seem to say the opposite?”

I have three hypotheses. One is that the ecosystem idea has fuzzed everyone’s thinking. The second is that so much science is based on these ideas that scientists can’t imagine a world without them. Third is that scientists don’t study the “appeal to nature” idea in philosophy nor the history of its use (see Wikipedia here), so they don’t see that using it has conceptual problems way beyond the scientific community.

Again, I have not allowed comments here on NCFP; f you are inclined you can comment on the Virtual Book Club blog here.

Planning Rule Advisory Committee Recommendations

by

Received a press release today (copied below) about an independent advisory committee’s “recommendations for the implementation of the U.S. Forest Service’s 2012 Planning Rule.” The release doesn’t say much about those recommendations. Here’s a more direct link to the committee’s report:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprdb5346267

A transmittal letter says “The committee spent the last year carefully reviewing, learning and building consensus recommendations on revisions to the draft directives (manual and handbook) in a stepwise fashion.”

Looks like there’s enough in the committee’s work for a year’s worth of blog posts. Here are a couple of items from the transmittal letter:

• Desired Conditions and Natural Range of Variation (NRV): Both terms were defined to
improve clarity. Ensure forests understand that managing for NRV is not required by the
planning rule, and that forests can manage for desired conditions outside the NRV

• Species Of Conservation Concern (SCC): The draft directives are ambiguous as to when
how, and under what process, identified SCCs become determined SCCs. Efficiency and
efficacy would be greatly enhanced by 1) clarifying the timing of SCC identification, 2)
stressing the regional forester SCC determination be made early, clarifying the role of
responsible officials and regional foresters in SCC identification and determination; 3)
directing the regional forester to provide public access to the list of determined SCCs, and
(4) encouraging that the expertise of local, state and Tribal agency expertise is utilized in
identifying SCC.

Lots more to digest.

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

For Immediate Release
Contact: (202) 205-1005
Twitter: @forestservice
Planning Rule Advisory Committee presents recommendations to Forest Service
Committee’s efforts help ensure new rule meets public’s expectations
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21, 2013 – A first-of-its-kind independent advisory committee presented its recommendations for the implementation of the U.S. Forest Service’s 2012 Planning Rule to U.S. Department of Agriculture Deputy Undersecretary Robert Bonnie and Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell today, recommending strengthened collaboration, improved planning efficiencies and more effective and informed decision making.
The Planning Rule Federal Advisory Committee ( FACA) also made recommendations that strengthen ecological, social, economic and cultural sustainability objectives of the rule.  This includes  recommendations intended to deepen the level of stakeholder collaboration in forest planning, as well as recommendations regarding outreach, adaptive management, monitoring, wilderness, climate change, intergovernmental relations, species protection, and water resources.  
 The committee, formed in January 2012, advises the Secretary of Agriculture through the Chief of the Forest Service by providing advice and recommendations on the new rule and its directives. The proposed planning directives guide implementation of the planning rule which was published in the Federal Register in April 2012, and became effective a month later. 
“The members of this committee collectively bring to the table a vast amount of knowledge, passion and interest in our national forests and grasslands,” said Bonnie. “We thank this diverse group of members for their hard work in rolling up their sleeves to provide us recommendations on the 2012 Planning Rule.  This committee further illustrates our commitment to an open and transparent planning rule and process for implementation.
“This committee worked long and hard through a host of difficult issues to present us with these recommendations to help us manage our public lands for the greatest good,” Tidwell said. “The recommendations reinforce the importance of this Planning Rule and the role our national forests and grasslands serve for the American public – whether that be through recreation, clean water or supporting local economies.”
The committee is comprised of 21 members with varied backgrounds, who represent the full range of public interests in management of the National Forest System lands and who also represent geographically diverse locations and communities.
All FACA meetings are open to the public, and all proceedings and relevant documents are posted online.  The agency’s planning rule website has the latest information on the committee, the planning rule and its directives.
The mission of the U.S. Forest Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world. Public lands the Forest Service manages contribute more than $13 billion to the economy each year through visitor spending alone. Those same lands provide 20 percent of the nation’s clean water supply, a value estimated at $7.2 billion per year. The agency has either a direct or indirect role in stewardship of about 80 percent of the 850 million forested acres within the U.S., of which 100 million acres are urban forests where most Americans live.
#
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay).

EPA ‘Public Listening Session’ Turns Into Sierra Club Talking Session

by

An essay by Taylor Smith on Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That? blog caught my attention: “EPA ‘Public Listening Session’ Turns Into Sierra Club Talking Session.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/epa-public-listening-session-turns-into-sierra-club-talking-session/#more-97789

An excerpt:

Although the EPA hearing yielded the same mix of speakers, this time I noticed they were all wearing green Sierra Club “Climate Action Now” shirts.

The reason for this, I would later learn, was that the Sierra Club had mobilized hundreds of activists, transported them via bus (I presume of the fossil-fuel powered kind), prepped their testimonies the night before, and completely dominated the morning speaker slots. (There were several coal industry representatives in the morning, and a few other dissenters, including Heartland Policy Adviser Paul Driessen, who covered his experience here). By the afternoon, the Sierra Club had completely monopolized the speaking time (at least in the room I was in).

After the hearing, everyone was invited to a “Climate Social”  held at the Sierra Club’s office  with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, and Illinois state Sen. Michael Frerichs.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I felt a slight level of discomfort when I saw a single organization dominate a “public” hearing in the way that they did. I don’t care what the organization is or what they say they stand for, because if their 2011 listed revenue is over $97 million, then you know not all of it could have fallen in their laps from heaven.

The session concerned EPA carbon regulations, but I have attended forestry-oriented public meetings and listening sessions at which most, if not all, attendees seemed to represent the same position, if not the same organization. I’ve been to others at which everyone seemed independent. In this case, the Sierra Club didn’t do anything wrong; I’ll bet that industry groups have done the same at hearings on various issues. It’s a bit like asking its members to sign a form letter and e-mail it to an agency. But I’m curious about the effect of “packing” public meetings like this. Agencies these days often count and report the number of “original” letters and form letters for project or plan proposals. Do agencies somehow give more or less weight to public comments from attendees organized or transported by a single group?

Note that Driessen was one of the speakers and he certainly wasn’t wearing a Sierra Club shirt. So, Smith was incorrect — they were not “all wearing green Sierra Club “Climate Action Now” shirts.” The photo on the blog shows a lot of those green shirts in the audience.

“Unpublished” Interview with Pielke Jr. on Climate and the Typhoon

by

David Beebe made some statements implying attribution of the recent typhoon to climate change here, which reminded me that I thought these comments by Roger Pielke, Jr. on his blog to be of interest to us. First, there are similarities between the disasters we deal with (fires and floods) and other disasters.

I especially like these quotes:

Disasters are well understood to be consequences of human development (As Gilbert White used to say, extremes are acts of God, disasters are acts of Man) — where we live, how we live, etc. So you could say that a disaster is 100% human caused. At the same time, without the extreme event there wouldn’t have been a disaster either. So you could say that the disaster was 100% natural caused. Not sure this is a useful question, though I do understand the urge to assign blame. A better question is, what actions can we be taken so that future storms have a lesser human impact?

and (shades of our discussions about people simply moving out of wildfire country)

The same question could be asked of Miami, San Francisco, Tokyo, or Boulder etc etc. As Dennis Mileti used to say, we cannot avoid disasters, but we can shape how we experience disasters. The Philippines are always going to experience tropical cyclones, some very extreme. Similarly, San Francisco is always going to experience earthquakes. The questions to be asked well before an event occurs (or in the aftermath of the most recent event) are how do we want to experience those disasters, and what can we do to shape those experiences via purpose action (which invokes issues of wealth, politics. capacity, etc.)?

and Roger suggests something that is always wise to do:

Again, rather than speculate we should await rigorous post-disaster assessments. These are important questions that deserve thoughtful approaches.

Sound familiar? But going back to the Gilbert White quote, the idea that extremes are now thought by some to be themselves “Acts of Man” leaves the Deity out of the equation entirely (I wonder how She feels about that? ;)).

Those of us who are familiar with historical prophets may feel a resonance with “repent or God will destroy the world,” to “repent or Humanity will destroy the world.” I wonder whether, if given the facts of the situation, it’s ultimately brain chemistry that determines whether you tend to trust that people (aligned with Spirit, if that’s your belief system), will ultimately prevail in making a better world, or not. Many of us on the blog are old enough to remember that we were thought to be close to nuclear annihilation at one time. Is some level of fear of the future a part of human brain wiring, and the space is filled by “sinners” “nuclear warfare” “climate change” depending on who gets closest to the media with their fears? Is there a “right” balance to living in the moment and planning for the future? Do certain personality types tend to focus on the current versus the future? Where does “planning for” cross the line into “worrying about”? (Hmm.. that was pretty philosophical).

Also of interest is the way the interviewer asks questions and Roger pushes back when he thinks they are “ill-posed.” Harder to be that quick in a real time interview than a written one.

Anyway, I lifted these from two comments (4 and 6) to this post of his. Sorry, it wasn’t clear how to link directly to his comments in Blogger.

Seth Borenstein of AP sent me an email asking some questions, my quotes didn’t make it into his story, but here they are:

Here are ten questions:
1. What human factors do you see in play here in Typhoon Haiyan?

RP: If you are referring to the physical qualities of Haiyan, then I will defer to the recent IPCC AR5: “In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”

That means that the scientific evidence does not presently support claims of attribution of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on tropical cyclone behavior with respect to century-long trends (much less the behavior of individual storms). The IPCC AR5 cites some of our peer-reviewed work in its report (Weinkle et al. 2012, Journal of Climate).

Our peer-reviewed work suggests that assuming model predictions for future changes in tropical cyclone behavior are perfectly accurate (for a range of models) that it will be many decades, even centuries, before such a signal can be detected in trend data. More generally, I have written: “In practical terms, on timescales of decision making a signal that cannot be seen is indistinguishable from a signal that does not exist”

Of course, there are scientists willing to go beyond what can be supported empirically to make claims at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this subject — e.g., Mann, Francis, Masters are always good for inscrutable and unsupportable quotes. Such outlier views are welcomed, as help to push science forward. But they are also a minefield for journalists, politicians and activists who may cherry pick them as if they are somehow representative.

2. What about poverty and coastal development? How much of those were as factors?

RP: In general there is an inverse relationship between loss of life and property damage. The wealthier nations become the less loss of life in big disasters (again, in general). At the same time, more wealth also means more property damage.

While the details of Haiyan’s course of death and destruction will have to await post-disaster assessment, what we can say is that the development of warning systems and responses have led to a dramatic decrease in loss of life to tropical cyclones (and disasters generally) around the world. See:http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

Haiyan, and events like it, tell us that there is still much work to do in addressing vulnerability to disasters. The long-term trends tell us that we have a sense of what actions will be effective in that work.

3. How about construction quality or is this a case with winds (depending on who is measuring) of 150 or 200 mph, is construction no longer an issue?

RP: Construction quality, including standards, enforcement, etc. is always going to be important in locations exposed to high winds. When the intensity is such that it exceeds building capacity to withstand, then it is important to have plans in place for evacuation to safe zones or shelters. To suggest in any situation that “construction is no longer an issue” is probably the wrong way to think about the challenge – construction always matters.

4. What about disaster preparations, quality or lack thereof, as a factor?

RP: The Philippines have centuries of experience with typhoons and the tragedies that can result. The specific lessons from Haiyan (Yolanda there) should await a careful assessment of what worked well and what might be improved. It is premature to speculate.

5. What about sea level rise, especially that attributed to climate change?

RP: Sea level rise is inexorable and relatively slow in comparison to the surges associated with tropical cyclones. It is important to be aware of, especially in the context of long-term planning. It is not possible to identify a “sea level rise” signal in historical normalized losses from tropical cyclones, and of course, not a GHG-driven sea-level rise signal. More generally, when we are talking about 5 meter storm surges, I am not convinced that 3 mm/year of sea level rise is a big issue in the magnitude of disaster losses (because building and adaptation along the coast is continuous and in the context of where the sea is presently), even though sea level rise is (again) real and important to consider in long-term planning and will have economic and social consequences.

6. When you look at all the human factors and then look at all the natural factors, what percentage would you put at human-caused (including poverty, development, population, preparation, construction, and climate change related) and what part natural? And why?

RP: Sorry, I don’t understand this question? What part of what?

Disasters are well understood to be consequences of human development (As Gilbert White used to say, extremes are acts of God, disasters are acts of Man) — where we live, how we live, etc. So you could say that a disaster is 100% human caused. At the same time, without the extreme event there wouldn’t have been a disaster either. So you could say that the disaster was 100% natural caused. Not sure this is a useful question, though I do understand the urge to assign blame. A better question is, what actions can we be taken so that future storms have a lesser human impact?

7. This is an area that normally gets more tropical cyclones than anywhere else in the world and generally stronger ones. And the Philippines are 7000 islands smack in the middle, how much of this is unavoidable? And when we talk unavoidable, what about just avoiding living in dangerous places, does this count?

RP: The same question could be asked of Miami, San Francisco, Tokyo, or Boulder etc etc. As Dennis Mileti used to say, we cannot avoid disasters, but we can shape how we experience disasters. The Philippines are always going to experience tropical cyclones, some very extreme. Similarly, San Francisco is always going to experience earthquakes. The questions to be asked well before an event occurs (or in the aftermath of the most recent event) are how do we want to experience those disasters, and what can we do to shape those experiences via purpose action (which invokes issues of wealth, politics. capacity, etc.)?

8. There’s also a few human factors that lessen disasters _ warning, good construction, disaster preparations, etc. What were their roles here?

RP: Again, rather than speculate we should await rigorous post-disaster assessments. These are important questions that deserve thoughtful approaches.

9. In this case did human factors that lessen disasters outweigh or come close to outweighing human factors that exacerbate disasters? And why?

RP: Ill posed .. see #6.

10. In general, looking at the last decade of mega-disasters worldwide, are human factors worsening or lessening disaster effects? And why?

RP: Overall, globally and over decades, disasters from weather events are resulting in lower damages per unit of GDP and less loss of life. This is a sign that the world is collectively doing better. Events like Haiyan remind us that there is a lot of work still to do, and other very large, consequential disaster events (Japan and Boxing day tsunamis, etc.) also remind us that the human toll can still be very tragic. In this sense disasters are too important to merely serve as a talking point in the debate over climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

Selling Natural Resources and Land to People in Other Countries

by

(Note: this post is more philosophical than usual. I’m interested in what people think, as I can understand both sides.)

We’ve had something before on this blog about wood exports to China. I think some people have brought up selling coal and oil and gas products, although not necessarily on this blog. I thought this piece was interesting about Chinese buying property, from a blog here by a local realtor..
I ask you, even if you disagree, not to say mean things about Jim.

Why are we doing this, and is it good policy to facilitate the purchase of American real estate by Chinese nationals?

It turns out that 85% of China’s 2.8 million high-net-worth citizens already send their children to study abroad and last year spent an estimated $50 billion buying real estate in 36 countries.

The United States is just one of many countries where the Chinese are buying real estate. A June 2013 report which I’ve posted at http://JimSmithColumns.com shows extensive buying of real estate in Europe, Asia, Australia, the Middle East, Brazil and Africa — not by businesses, but by individual Chinese wanting to invest/live outside China.

According to the China Private Wealth Report 2011, prepared by China Merchants Bank and Bain & Company, the key motivations for Chinese nationals to invest abroad are 1) children’s education, 2) getting cash out of China for security, and 3) preparation for retirement.

Chinese are not the only foreigners investing in and moving to the United States. Analyzing the list of sold homes published in last Saturday’s Denver Post, I figure that 4.5% of metro area sales are to buyers with Asian or Middle Eastern names.

But China is the only country with high-end cash buyers which severely limits online access to American real estate websites like realtor.com, Trulia and Zillow, as well as search engines like Google. That is what has driven the success of domestic Chinese websites like Juwai.com, which records 90 million searches per month within China.

Two readers sent me emails expressing the same questions and concerns which I had before signing up for this service, so I thought I would address them in this week’s column.

A reader from Morrison urged me not to “sell out” to the Chinese, who already own the Panama Canal. (I didn’t know that.) He suggested it was greed that would motivate me to advertise our listings in China….

First, there’s my responsibility to my sellers to market their home and sell it for the highest possible price. Having learned of this pool of cash buyers, could or should I refuse to show them our listings?

Secondly, these high-net-worth Chinese, themselves capitalists, are interested in the United States because they like living here in our free society.

Now, for natural resource exports, reason 2 does not apply. Do you think the landowner is “greedy” to sell outside the US, or “welcoming of strangers”? does this just apply to people in other countries, or Californians in Oregon? Why or why not?

If we have indeed extracted natural resources using our own (adequate) regulations, does it matter to whom we sell them? Is there something intuitively, or otherwise, different about selling products and selling land?

Shout-out to EDF Work on Proposed Oil and Gas Rules

by

Here is a link to a Denver Post story on new Colorado rules..the reason I’m posting it (other than I suspect oil and gas is not covered well in other places) is to “catch people doing something right.” It seems like a great environmental step forward, so I would like to give a shout-out to the environmental groups who worked on this (assuming as always, that this is reported accurately).

Environment groups, led by the Environmental Defense Fund, helped craft the proposed rules.

“First in the nation, direct regulation of methane from oil and gas production facilities is a big, exciting step forward,” Conservation Colorado director Pete Maysmith said.

Below is the description of the draft regulations.

State health officials rolled out groundbreaking rules for the oil and gas industry Monday to address worsening air pollution, including a requirement that companies control emissions of the greenhouse gas methane, linked to climate change.

The rules would force companies to capture 95 percent of all toxic pollutants and volatile organic compounds they emit.

This would cut overall air pollution by 92,000 tons a year — roughly equivalent to taking every car in the state off the road for a year, state health chief Larry Wolk said. Such reductions could help bring Colorado’s heavily populated Front Range, where smog and ozone are on the rise, back into compliance with federal air quality standards.

No state has adopted rules directly limiting methane emitted by oil and gas operations. Federal government and United Nations authorities are developing rules to try to reduce such emissions because they are a large factor in global warming.

“These are going to amount to the very best air quality regulations in the country,” Gov. John Hickenlooper said.

He credited executives from Anadarko, Encana and Noble Energy — the state’s largest producers — for compromising and helping minimize environmental harm from drilling before the cost implications are fully known.

“They understand it is a shared responsibility,” he said, “and they have really stepped up.”

Under the rules, companies would have to:

• Detect leaks from tanks, pipelines, wells and other facilities using devices such as infrared cameras.

• Inspect for leaks at least once a month at large facilities and plug leaks.

• Adhere to more stringent limits on emissions from equipment near where people live and play.

• Use flare devices to burn off emissions from facilities not connected to pipelines.

Noble Vice President Ted Brown said the prescribed practices are “the right thing to do” but added that “it’s a tough rule.”

He and counterparts from Anadarko and Encana said they support the proposed rules as a way to operate more safely and build public trust.

“Regulatory certainty is important to the company, and doing the right thing also is important to the company,” Encana’s Lem Smith said. Reducing industry air pollution will bring a “quantifiable environmental benefit.”

The East Side of the Sierra Nevada

by

I recently took a trip with my brother, as he wanted to try out my old digital camera. There is an abundance of “protected areas” here (including Wild Willies Hot Springs), and timber projects have been gone for about 20 years, now. Below is the Mono Lake Tufa Preserve, a fee-area which accepts the Park Service passes. There is a nice boardwalk down to the lake shore, paved parking and bathrooms.

P9111546-web

Turning off Highway 395, at Tom’s Place, there is easy access to the John Muir Wilderness. We took a short hike and found this really nice overlook to one of the many lakes close to the trailhead. Despite the lack of snow, there is no lack of cold, making persistent ice on the lake. This watershed extends up to 13,700 feet.

P9101347-web

I have visited North Lake, before, back in the mid-80’s, during a three-day ski mountaineering trip. This road has easy access to Paiute Pass and the nearly-14,000 foot Mount Humpreys, west of Bishop. This road has three forks, each of which provide access to the Sierra Crest (and hydro locations).

P9101488-web

More of my adventure, including Yosemite National Park, at www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware