Time for Planning and Re-Planning: Sage Grouse Edition

by

Nice poster, Sage Grouse Initiative!

Somehow I hadn’t been following sage grouse, but apparently there’s another plan in the works. Pew sent out this notification…

 

Dear Wilderness Supporter,

Populations of the iconic greater sage-grouse have fallen significantly over the past six decades, with an 80% decline across their range since 1965—and half of that drop occurring since 2002. These disturbing findings, together with the Biden administration’s focus on combating climate change, compelled the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—the largest federal land manager of sage-grouse habitat—to reexamine its management of the 67 million acres of habitat in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.

We have an opportunity to slow the alarming decline of the sage-grouse and its habitat.
The public comment period closes June 13th! Act now to ensure your voice is heard.

The sagebrush steppe of the interior American West covers tens of millions of acres and is one of the nation’s most imperiled ecosystems. Sagebrush landscapes—which are home not only to greater sage-grouse but also to mule deer, pronghorn, pygmy rabbits, and more than 350 other species—continue to shrink rapidly because of a host of growing threats, including wildfire, energy development, and the spread of invasive plant species.

While the draft plan is a step in the right direction, science points to the need for even stronger management so that the greater sage-grouse population can recover. The BLM is requesting public input on its draft plan. Please take a moment to submit your comments so that the BLM hears a resounding message from the public urging it to:

  • Provide strong and consistent management action that takes into account changing climatic conditions to stem the ongoing population declines.
  • Protect and expand intact landscapes that support sage-grouse and the 350 other species that depend on the sagebrush steppe through designations of Priority Habitat Management Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
  • Mitigate against any impacts across this vulnerable habitat to ensure the long-term viability of the species.

Please act today to help slow the alarming decline of the sage-grouse and its habitat. The deadline to submit comments is June 13th. Act now!

**************

Note: were it not for the last-minute twist I described in this post. the Obama Admin could have had a sage grouse deal that stuck. Here is what my source said:

Folks from Garfield County, CO did a FOIA and found out that the changes were associated in time with meetings with various environmental organizations, including Pew. One particular idea added during these last changes was the idea of “focal areas”. The States went ballistic.

If the Obama Admin had not listened to these groups,  it’s likely that we would have spared the sage grouse workers, BLM folks of all stripes, (and the public) two more goes at this planning effort (one Trump and one Biden).

I’m always interested in lessons learned from various efforts and it turns out that there was a paper written about Wyoming’s lessons learned.  Since 2003, Local Sage-Grouse Working Groups worked together (LWGs) , Wyoming also had an SGIT:

In 2007, a statewide SageGrouse Implementation Team (SGIT) was appointed to advise the governor of Wyoming on all matters related to the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Policy. The Core Area Policy was established by a governors’ executive order and provided mechanisms for limiting human disturbance in the most important sage-grouse habitats. Federal land management agencies have incorporated most aspects of the Core Area Policy into their land use planning decisions

Process and project implementation.
Successes at the statewide scale appeared to be largely the product of sound science used to inform policy making and effective leadership by Governors Freudenthal and Mead as well as the SGIT chairman, Bob Budd. While the potential for ESA listing certainly provided economic motivation for individuals and interests not otherwise dedicated to wildlife and habitat conservation to earnestly participate in the process, charismatic leadership should not be underestimated as a compelling force guiding diverse interests to work cooperatively toward a mutually acceptable outcome. Even so, challenges remain at both the local and state scale. These include:
• Increasingly infrequent LWG meetings impact group dynamics, as LWG members need to refresh their memories and reestablish working relationships.
• LWG project outcomes are often unquantified and undocumented, so their effectiveness is uncertain.
• The consensus decision-making model often results in more discussion and deliberation on an issue than would have occurred under a simple majority vote model. In the Wyoming LWGs, this appears to have led to better decisions being made. However, the resulting decisions can alternatively be a compromise that insufficiently addresses an important issue, but stands nonetheless as parties to the decision prioritize cooperation over outcome.
• Some individual LWG members harbor modest resentment of the SGIT, which has greater policy-making influence. Including more LWG representation on the SGIT could improve these relationships.
• Although adaptive management is an operative concept in the CAP, the reality is that people, and especially business, prefer stability and certainty. Consequently, resistance to change can be a difficult challenge to overcome, even in the face of compelling science.
• Overriding of advisory group recommendations by decision-makers may threaten the success of the group process. Examples of this include the federal designation of “Sagebrush Focal Areas” in the federal land-use planning process completed prior to the 2015 listing decision, the Department of Interior Secretarial Order 3353 directing review of all planning decisions made by the previous administration relative to sage-grouse, and 2016 legislation in Wyoming allowing private bird farms to collect eggs from wild sage-grouse and develop captive flocks. Each of these decisions was made with no or minimal consideration of established advisory group processes, resulting in concern from various participants that might
undermine their interest in continuing to be involved.

Paramount to all is the fact that both the local and state processes are reliant on the ability of diverse participants, who often hold adversarial viewpoints, to develop and maintain positive working relationships in seeking to achieve mutually agreeable goals. We believe the Wyoming model has potential to succeed in an era of political polarization.

I think there’s probably a better way to go than Partisan Policy Ping-Pong on western lands. Hopefully the Biden Admin will ultimately pick something of a more peace-keeping and likely to be permanent nature, and not a pre-election sharp stick in the eye that would lead us into another round of (potentially pointlessly provocative) planning..

$350M in federal land sales likely to benefit Nevada public lands and wildlife

by

From High Country News….

Excerpt:

Since the passage of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) in 1998, more than $4 billion in revenue generated from Las Vegas area land sales has been directed to conservation, park improvement and wildfire prevention projects across Nevada and the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Now, another $348 million in federal dollars is set to be allocated for additional projects, and the federal government is seeking input on where that money should go.

Dozens of projects have been proposed statewide, from those that would help protect endangered Mojave Desert tortoises in rural Southern Nevada to those that would expand city parks in Northern Nevada, all funded by proceeds from SNPLMA sales. 

FEMAT, The Clinton Plan, AI & I

by

I’m still at the awkward “getting to know you” phase of my relationship with AI. A friend created an Oregon Small Woodland Owners Chat-GPT group and allowed me to become a member, so I have been tentatively trying it out.

During the past few months I have spent less than 10 hours doodling around with AI, but was actually able to put it to good use for several of those hours by having it summarize some lengthy legal documents and government reports for a paper I am working on. By checking the summaries with some speed reading and detailed spot checking, and by comparing with other written accounts, I was able to gain some confidence in the accuracy of these summaries, although I did spot a few minor errors of omission here and there.

Recent events have led me to consider the current effort to update the Northwest Forest Plan by committee. This plan is directly descended from the original 1993 FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management) report that produced the 1994 Clinton Plan for Northwest Forests.

As I have noted elsewhere, Norm Johnson — who helped spearhead the plan with his political knowledge and FORPLAN software — initially hired me to do historical research for the scientists that were developing the report. Clinton’s Plan was to use FEMAT and FORPLAN to create a formal strategy to finally resolve the conflict that had developed beyween old-growth activists and active forest managers during that time — the so-called “Timber Wars” characterized as being between loggers and environmentalists.

Norm and I parted ways fairly quickly due to conflicts between his computer print-outs and my historical documentation — and resulting differences in forest management philosophies — and I was hired by the forest industry instead, to do a critical analysis of FEMAT: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Reports/1994_Clinton_Plan/Zybach_19940329.pdf

This is where AI comes into the picture. I thought it would be good to compare my previous concerns and recommendations with current efforts, but I hadn’t read my analysis in more than 30 years, and it is more than 100 pages long. So I asked AI to do it for me. I asked it three questions from a third person perspective: What are Zybach’s five main concerns with FEMAT and the Clinton Plan? What evidence is there to support these concerns? What recommendations does he make for addressing these concerns?

Without any editing, punctuation, or any other alteration to font size or anything else, here’s what AI replied after a few seconds time — an accurate summary of my own work that would have taken me five or 10 hours to produce:

********************************

What are Zybach’s five major concerns regarding FEMAT and the Clinton Plan? 

Bob Zybach’s five major concerns regarding FEMAT and the Clinton Plan, as detailed in his critical review, are:

  1. Historical Inaccuracies: Zybach criticizes the historical assumptions in FEMAT, arguing that the baseline information on the history and current status of old-growth forests in the Douglas-fir region is inadequately and inaccurately presented. He contends that faulty information about fire and logging history leads to flawed predictive assumptions about “naturally functioning” ecosystems and native wildlife populations.
  2. Faulty Information and Lack of Interdisciplinary Review: He argues that the process used to develop the FEMAT alternatives relied on faulty information and lacked meaningful interdisciplinary review. This resulted in the use of flawed assumptions that underpin many of the planning goals, such as old-growth preservation and native wildlife diversity.
  3. Limited Management Alternatives: Zybach believes that the limited variety of management alternatives presented to President Clinton is a direct result of the flawed assumptions used in FEMAT. He suggests that a wider range of legal, economically, and ecologically sound management alternatives was not considered.
  4. The “Blanket of Old-Growth” Myth: He challenges the assumption that the Douglas-fir region was historically a continuous blanket of old-growth forest. He argues that historical evidence shows a more varied landscape with shifting patterns of even-aged stands of conifers, prairies, savannahs, and other vegetation types, influenced by human activities such as burning.
  5. Cultural Landscapes and Succession Theory: Zybach disputes the idea that American Indians lived in a “naturally functioning” environment described in terms of regional fire cycles and forest plant succession. He emphasizes the role of human activity in shaping the landscape and argues that this has been overlooked in the FEMAT assumptions.

These concerns highlight Zybach’s belief that the Clinton Plan and FEMAT are based on a number of fundamentally flawed assumptions that undermine the effectiveness of the proposed management strategies.

What evidence does Zybach use to support these concerns?

To identify the evidence Bob Zybach uses to support his concerns about FEMAT and the Clinton Plan, let’s refer to the specific content available in the provided document.

Key Evidence Used by Zybach

  1. Historical Records and Maps:
    • Zybach refers to historical maps and records to challenge the “Blanket of Old-Growth” myth. He cites maps from the 1800s showing varied vegetation patterns including prairies, savannahs, and young forests, which contradict the notion of a continuous old-growth forest at the time of European settlement.
    • He uses General Land Office survey notes and maps from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which document the presence of diverse vegetation types and the impact of historical fires and human activities on the landscape.
  2. Eyewitness Accounts and Scientific Studies:
    • Zybach cites the observations of early explorers and settlers, such as the descriptions of James Neall and other pioneers, who reported significant open areas and the use of fire by Native Americans to manage the landscape.
    • He references scientific studies and historical accounts that document the role of fire in shaping the forests and the presence of extensive open areas at the time of European settlement.
  3. Analysis of Fire History and Logging Practices:
    • Zybach presents evidence from fire history studies, including the work of Henderson and others, which show the occurrence of major fires over the past 1,000 years that created a mosaic of forest ages and types.
    • He discusses the historical use of fire by Native Americans for various purposes and how this influenced the vegetation patterns observed by early settlers.
  4. Critique of FEMAT Assumptions:
    • He critically analyzes the assumptions used in FEMAT, such as the idea of “naturally functioning” ecosystems and regional fire cycles, and provides alternative interpretations based on historical evidence and practical experience.
    • Zybach highlights discrepancies between FEMAT’s descriptions of historical conditions and the documented evidence from historical records, maps, and scientific studies.
  5. Comparative Analysis of Management Strategies:
    • He compares the management strategies proposed in FEMAT with those used historically, emphasizing the effectiveness of traditional practices such as controlled burning and selective logging in maintaining diverse and resilient ecosystems.

By using a combination of historical records, scientific studies, eyewitness accounts, and practical experience, Zybach builds a case against the assumptions and conclusions of FEMAT and the Clinton Plan. He advocates for a management approach that incorporates historical knowledge and adaptive strategies to address the complex dynamics of forest ecosystems.

What recommendations does Zybach make for addressing these deficiencies?

Bob Zybach makes several recommendations to address the deficiencies he identifies in FEMAT and the Clinton Plan. These recommendations focus on incorporating historical knowledge, improving data accuracy, and considering a wider range of management alternatives.

Key Recommendations by Zybach

  1. Incorporate Historical Knowledge:
    • Zybach emphasizes the importance of understanding the historical use of fire by Native Americans and the resulting landscape patterns. He recommends integrating this historical knowledge into current forest management practices to create more accurate and effective management strategies.
  2. Improve Data Accuracy:
    • He calls for the use of accurate historical data, including detailed maps and records from the General Land Office surveys, to provide a better understanding of past forest conditions. Zybach suggests that current assumptions about old-growth forests and natural ecosystems should be revised based on this accurate historical information.
  3. Expand Management Alternatives:
    • Zybach criticizes the limited variety of management alternatives presented in FEMAT and recommends considering a broader range of options. These alternatives should include practices such as controlled burning, selective logging, and the creation of wildlife habitats that reflect historical vegetation patterns.
  4. Adaptive Management Strategies:
    • He advocates for adaptive management strategies that are flexible and responsive to new information and changing conditions. This approach would involve continuous monitoring and adjustment of management practices based on scientific research and historical data.
  5. Public Involvement and Education:
    • Zybach stresses the need for public involvement in forest management decisions. He recommends increasing public awareness and education about the historical and ecological context of forest management. Engaging local communities and stakeholders in the management process is crucial for developing effective and sustainable strategies.
  6. Reconstruction of Historical Environments:
    • He suggests that efforts should be made to reconstruct historical environments using techniques such as controlled burning and selective logging. These practices can help restore the diversity and resilience of forest ecosystems.

By implementing these recommendations, Zybach believes that forest management practices can be improved to better reflect historical realities and achieve more effective conservation and restoration outcomes.

Criminal case dismissed against burn boss in Oregon

by

News brief from Oregon Public Broadcasting.

In October 2022, Grant County Sheriff Todd McKinley arrested Ricky Snodgrass, a U.S. Forest Service employee who was leading a prescribed burn that jumped to private land and burned roughly 20 acres. In February of this year, a grand jury indicted Snodgrass on a misdemeanor count of reckless burning.

His case was then moved to federal court, where it was dismissed last week. The case was a particularly striking example of longstanding tensions between federal agencies and local communities in rural Oregon.

Smokey’s Back: Reilly et al. (2023) on Human-Caused Wildfire Ignitions in the Pacific Northwest; California and Arizona Stories

by

This table is from Reilly, et al. I think this way of divvying up causes is helpful.  I wonder if this is standardized anywhere?

I’ve often asked “how can we afford to fund studies that model wildfires in 2100 under different climate scenarios, but can’t afford the social science to help reduce human ignitions?”

Anyway, a big shout-out to Reilly et al. for their 2023 paper “The Influence of Socioeconomic Factors in Wildfire Ignitions in the Pacific Northwest USA”

On pages 2, 3 and 4, they have a roundup of other studies on the topic around the world, with links. I think it will be fairly interesting to Oregonians, especially how they talk about how different areas have different relationships between socioeconomic and physical factors and human-caused (as well as natural) ignitions.

Maps of ignitions density (Figure 7) suggest that specific ignition causes exhibit unique spatial patterns. Higher densities of recreation caused ignitions were found along the west-side of Cascade mountain range and outside of urban centers such as Portland, Oregon,and Seattle, Washington, where recreation use is high (Figure 7a), and concentrations of ignitions attributable to debris and open burning were clustered in more rural areas immediately surrounding major cities and in the northeast region of Washington (Figure 7b).Ignitions caused by equipment and vehicle use (Figure 7c) were concentrated in the south-west of Oregon, where forestry and agriculture activity intersected with the areas of higher wildfire hazard potential. These patterns were further explored with spatial hotspot analysis, which indicated that these clusters of county subdivisions with high human ignition density were statistically significant (Appendix B, Figures A1 and A2).From a policy and management perspective, it may be useful to consider how interventions might be designed and deployed to address behaviors that lead to ignitions of unintended human-caused wildfires (Table 6). Given that discretionary direct behaviors(recreation and open burning) generated over half of the known causes of human ignitions(56 percent) in Oregon and Washington over the past quarter century, it may be prudent to develop more tailored information and outreach programs that guide risk assessment of these activities under high risk fire weather conditions geared towards recreationists or for those applying for burn permits and to target interventions to the most relevant areas. Similarly, the development of tailored information regarding wildfire risk of common discretionary indirect activities could help reduce the number of ignitions resulting from activities such as vehicle and equipment use, the third largest known cause of human ignitions in the region

**********************

Last year, Axios San Diego had an interesting story on human caused fires in California

By the numbers: About 86% of wildfires in California between 1992 and 2020 were spurred by human activity, burning 63 acres on average, U.S. Forest Service analysis of wildfire data found.

  • Meanwhile, Cal Fire officials say 95% of fires are human-caused currently.

Of note: Lightning strikes accounted for the other fires with known causes, mostly in the northeastern and mountainous parts of the state that border Nevada.

Details: The top three human activities known to have led to these blazes were from equipment and vehicles, arson and debris burning, the data shows.

  • That includes accidental incidents and neglect, such as leaving a campfire unattended or a malfunctioning catalytic converter spitting a molten substance out of an exhaust pipe.

Between the lines: While firearms and explosives caused 0.2% of wildfires, they led to the largest human-caused blazes, at 380 acres on average.

*******************************

The Hotshot Wakeup reported that Arizona folks are beginning to investigate and address human-caused wildfire ignitions. The ones in Pinal County seem to be focused on using equipment in the wildland-urban interface in areas with greater fuel loadings than people are used to.

“Our last seven starts have been human-caused and they have actually been construction companies starting these,” Scottsdale Fire Capt. Dave Folio said.

The department is asking those construction crews to create a 10 to 15-foot defensible space around their work areas.

Folio says we have seen how dangerous not taking these precautions can be.

Last June, the Diamond Fire, which was caused by a construction crew cutting rebar, forced 1,000 people to leave their north Scottsdale homes as the flames got within feet of properties.

“Construction crews choose a place to cut the rebar that isn’t in the middle of the desert,” Folio said. “Move the combustibles off your construction site. Help us eliminate one spark and that’s all we’re asking for.”

Meanwhile, the Tonto NF  reported human-caused fires from recreational uses.

In many cases, human-caused fires could originate from target shooting, fireworks, Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use or other vehicle fire, escaped campfire, accidentally or intentionally set. Human-caused fires outnumber natural starts by 3 to 1 on the Tonto, with several already this season such as the Spring Fire, related to target shooting, and Wildcat fire, related to OHV use.

****************

For many areas, it’s the beginning of the fire season, but please add links where you find local concerns about human-caused fires and what the locality is doing to reduce them.  Smokey’s back!

NW Forest Plan Revision FAC Meeting, June 25-27

by

FYI…

 

The Northwest Forest Plan Amendment Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) will meet on June 25-27, 2024, at Courtyard Marriott Conference Room, 2301 Henderson Park Lane SE, Olympia, Washington. 

 

The FAC meeting will be livestreamed at Northwest Forest Plan Federal Advisory Committee Meeting (hd1live.com) . The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.  Further details regarding the upcoming meeting, including how the public can provide information to the committee is posted on the Forest Service’s regional website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r6/nwfpfac.  The Federal Register meeting announcement can be found here: Federal Register: Northwest Forest Plan Area Advisory Committee.

 

FAC meetings are open for the public to observe in-person or via live stream.  Additionally, written and oral comments will be accepted, with oral comments taken during a designated portion of the meeting. 

 

Anyone wishing to provide in-person oral comments must pre-register by 11:59 p.m. PST on June 14, 2024. Written public comments will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. PST on June 14, 2024. Comments submitted after this date will be provided by the Forest Service to the Committee, but the Committee may not have adequate time to consider those comments prior to the meeting.

 

Meeting Purpose

This will be the Federal Advisory Committee’s fifth meeting for members to provide and vote on their recommendations for an amendment to the Northwest Forest Plan.

 

What is the Federal Advisory Committee’s role?

The FAC was established by the Secretary of Agriculture as part of ongoing efforts to amend the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the FAC is to bring together diverse perspectives representing the experiences of communities, experts, Tribes, and other interested parties across the Northwest Forest Plan landscape to inform ways that forest management can effectively conserve key resources while considering social, ecological, and economic conditions and needs.

 

How can I get involved and learn more?  

The Federal Advisory Committee does not replace the public involvement process or the public’s opportunity to engage directly with the Forest Service regarding Northwest Forest Plan amendment efforts during the planning process.  To learn more about the Northwest Forest Plan and future engagement opportunities please visit the Northwest Forest Plan website.

 

The Northwest Forest Plan covers 24.5 million acres of federally managed lands in northwestern California, western Oregon, and Washington. It was established in 1994 to address threats to threatened and endangered species while also contributing to social and economic sustainability in the region. After nearly 30 years, the Northwest Forest Plan needs to be updated to accommodate changed ecological and social conditions.  

 

For future Northwest Forest Plan Amendment updates please sign-up using USDA Forest Service (govdelivery.com).

 

Additional Background: The Forest Service is required by law to develop plans that guide the long-term management of public lands. The Forest Service will amend the Northwest Forest Plan in accordance with the 2012 Planning Rule, using public input and other public, private, and nonprofit organizations and governments. Land management plans establish priorities and provide strategic direction for how the plan area is to be managed.   

 

Amendments to this plan will be informed by findings in the Bioregional Assessment and Science Synthesis as well as input from the Federal Advisory Committee and a range of other interested organizations and individuals. This effort builds on the agency’s Northwest Forest Plan work, including information gathers via monitoring, listening sessions and bioregional Assessment. 

New Book: Burn Scars

by

This is due to be available in September from OSU Press. It’s by Char Miller. Very timely!

Burn Scars

A Documentary History of Fire Suppression, from Colonial Origins to the Resurgence of Cultural Burning

The first documentary history of wildfire management in the United States, Burn Scars probes the long efforts to suppress fire, beginning with the Spanish invasion of California in the eighteenth century and continuing through the US Forest Service’s relentless nationwide campaign in the twentieth century. The Forest Service argued that suppression was critical for good forest management, especially but not exclusively in the American West. In recent years, suppression has come under increasing scrutiny as a contributing factor to our current era of megafires.

In Burn Scars, historian Char Miller assembles a collection of primary sources focused on debates over “light burning” (as prescribed or controlled burning was called). These historic documents show that not only was fire suppression controversial, but that it was also driven by explicitly racist and colonial beliefs. Yet the suppression paradigm contained within it the seeds of its destruction: Indigenous people continued to use fire as did non-Indigenous land managers. By the 1920s, scientific evidence was beginning to reveal that fire was essential for regenerating grasslands and forests; by the 1930s even the Forest Service was testing fire’s ecological benefits.

Burn Scars focuses on the burning debates of the early twentieth century, but Miller also provides evidence of a powerful counternarrative emerging from southern non-Indigenous foresters who used fire to revive longleaf pine ecosystems. The volume begins and ends with contributions from Indigenous practitioners discussing the long history and resurgent practice of cultural burning as part of traditional stewardship.

About the authorChar Miller is W. M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis at Pomona College. He has written and edited numberous books, including Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism, Fluid Arguments: Water in the American West, and Deep in the Heart of San Antonio: Land and Life in South Texas.

Plans for an Ailing Forest Include Logging. Environmentalists Object.

by

In the New York Times today:

Plans for an Ailing Forest Include Logging. Environmentalists Object.

Officials in Oregon say they need to cut trees, including some healthy ones. The reaction shows how complex land management has become as forest health declines.

Excerpts:

Across a patch of the Pacific Northwest, one of North America’s most important tree species is dying at an alarming rate. This spring, as in the past several years, the needles on Douglas firs are yellowing, turning red and then dropping to the ground in forests across southwestern Oregon.

Experts blame a combination of factors, including insect attacks, drought and increased temperatures caused by climate change. Decades of fire suppression have exacerbated problems by disrupting the natural balance of ecosystems.

“The droughts and heat and climate change are killing trees widely, and there’s no clear way to put that genie back in the bottle,” said Rob Jackson, an ecologist at the Doerr School of Sustainability at Stanford University who is researching the ways climate change affects forests and grasslands. “We are priming our forests to die.”

…

Dominick DellaSala, the chief scientist at Wild Heritage, a forest protection advocacy organization, has visited the forests with Mr. Ruediger to witness the Douglas fir die-off and also said he remained suspicious about the agency’s motivation. “What the agencies will do, they’ll cherry pick the science to fit the desired outcome,” he said.

“You’ve got to tackle climate change, because that’s a lot of what’s driving this,” Dr. DellaSala added. “And you’ve got to reduce the pressures on forests through these kinds of logging events.”

BLM Provides Offsite Mitigation for Private Land Development… Gets $ for Restoration.. Without Conservation Leasing

by
From Bakersfield.com

We’ve been following the federal land preservation vs. renewable energy build-out debate for some time.  Right now this seems to have caught some media attention as the Joshua Trees vs. solar panels debate.  According to K.T. Lynn, who writes the Substack “The Joule Thief”,

Last week, a little-known conservation group called Basin and Range Watch went viral in energy and environmental circles on Twitter (now X), drawing attention to the imminent plight of the Joshua trees in the following post:

4,200 Joshua trees are scheduled to be removed are [sic.] replaced by solar panels for the Aratina Solar Project near Boron, CA in June of this year. They will not be salvaged but funds based on the size of the tree will be placed in a mitigation bank

According to its Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Aratina site sits on 2,317 acres of privately owned land in the high desert of eastern unincorporated Kern County. Project plans include the installation of 530 MW of solar PV modules, and an energy storage facility providing capacity of up to 600 MWh for the electrical grid. Located in the Antelope Valley on the western edge of the Mojave, the topography is elevated and mostly flat, and therefore highly suitable for utility-scale solar.

*************

The L.A. Times’ environment columnist Sammy Roth mentioned Avantus in an ode to building renewables on public lands , praising the company’s habitat restoration projects — a classic PR deflection technique that should have raised skepticism and prodded further investigation. As Mr. Roth accurately reported, Avantus purchased 215,000 acres of grazing rights in Kern County from the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in order to retire those rights and restore the natural Mojave ecosystem, including desert tortoises, burrowing owls, ground squirrels, and…Joshua trees. What the Times apparently did not bother to find out was that this land acquisition serves (at least in part) as the mitigation bank that will be used to offset the destruction of the 4,200 Joshua trees on the Aratina solar site. For those unfamiliar with the mitigation bank concept, it is a variation on the carbon offset program, where, according to Investopedia “ecological loss…is compensated by the preservation and restoration of wetlands, natural habitats, and streams in other areas.” These plans are blatantly stated on Arantina’s website:

One novel mitigation approach is the Onyx Conservation Project, which Avantus created in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In Eastern Kern County, Onyx permanently protects 215,000 acres of critical California habitat – home to 20 sensitive wildlife species, including the Mojave desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel, as well as an estimated 80,000 acres of western Joshua Tree habitat.

The story of Joshua Tree protection is fairly interesting.  KT goes on to say:

It is likewise noteworthy that supposed environmental NGOs are fully onboard the bandwagon to build utility solar on virgin desert, without so much as acknowledging the apparent contradiction to their original missions of conservation. In a letter to BLM submitted by a coalition of advocacy groups (NRDC, Audubon, The Wilderness Society) and for-profit energy companies (EDF Renewables, Intersect Power, Longroad Energy), the unholy alliance of signatories urged the agency to hasten the construction of solar projects on federal lands (which inevitably comes at the cost of performing due diligence and thorough environmental impact studies).

What was most interesting to me, though, is the Onyx Conservation Project which “permanently protects” 215K acres of critical habitat.  It sounds like the company bought out a grazing allotment and has done some kind of deal with the State of California for that to count for mitigation for their industrial facility on private land.  From Power magazine:

The resulting Onyx Conservation Project (Onyx), in collaboration with the Bureau of Land Management, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reflects Avantus’ creative and concerted approach to building clean energy responsibly while preserving precious land and delivering on President Biden’s America the Beautiful campaign. Onyx conserves and reallocates more than 215,000 acres — roughly seven times larger than San Francisco — from an active grazing allotment to an area permanently dedicated to wildlife forage in Kern County.

Here’s a bit more explanation:

Going beyond the requests of local residents and requirements of the WJTJCA, Avantus purchased the grazing rights on 215,000 acres of federal land in Kern County and created the Onyx Conservation Project. The contiguous land area is seven times larger than the city of San Francisco and considered among the largest mitigation projects in the nation.

The habitat is home to 20 sensitive wildlife species including the California condor, Mojave Desert tortoise, American badger, Mohave ground squirrel and golden eagles. It is also estimated to include more than 80,000 acres of western Joshua tree habitat, including 3,000 acres of dense woodland. This conservation effort will help sustain the health and diversity of the desert ecosystem, which is underlaid by designated Wilderness Areas, Desert National Conservation Lands, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. All 215,000 acres will also be open for public recreational use, including hiking and camping.

Avantus will also invest millions of additional dollars for habitat enhancements across Onyx to jumpstart restoration for desert plants and wildlife species.

I’m glad that Avantus buying the grazing leases didn’t enable them to kick off the public.

My Questions:

1. Should federal land (possible removed from current uses) be used to mitigate private development? Since most federal land is more or less conserved, wouldn’t it be better for the environment to buy and mitigate private land?

2. If industries are using taxpayer land for mitigation (remember conservation now counts as a use, at least according to BLM PR) how much should they be paying the taxpayer? Should this be consistent? What should it be based on?

3. Is the concept of “permanent” as in “permanently dedicated” a journalistic error, or is there something going on outside the RMP process, or were they already permanently protected by  their existing RMP based status and this is just marketing for the company to claim credit?

4. If the BLM can do this kind of thing already, why did it need a new rule to do “conservation leasing”?

5. Could this increased desire for mitigation on federal lands have anything to do with political donations?

In some areas, if you take off cows, you end up with large amounts of dry grasses that are fire hazards.  Hopefully that is not the case in this area.