Can Both Things be True? We Need to Protect Mesic Forests for Carbon and We Will Lose Them Due to Climate Change?

by

 

This is from a classic 1992 paper on genetics in reforestation under climate change. The Douglas fir near my house don’t appear to be suffering, 30-ish years later.

Here’s an article in Mongabay, which attempts to explain this very complicated article in Nature.

  • Landscapes are showing signs of losing their ability to absorb the amount of carbon they once could, a new study revealed. That would pose serious obstacles to the fight against climate change.
  • The study reviewed the productivity of carbon storage of different ecosystems between 1981 and 2018, finding that many fluctuated greatly and were at risk of turning into permanent scrubland.
  • Researchers identified a concerning “spiraling” effect, in which landscapes absorb less carbon that in turn worsens climate change, which then destabilizes additional landscapes and puts them at higher risk of turning into scrubland.

One reason for this, the researchers said, is that landscapes have a “memory” of which years had high carbon storage and which were low. Low years are more likely to be followed by additional low years, meaning that as carbon storage potential diminishes, a landscape is more likely to permanently become scrubland.

The phenomenon can be thought of as a “spiraling” effect, researchers said, in which landscapes absorb less carbon that in turn worsens climate change, which then destabilizes additional landscapes and puts them at higher risk of turning into scrubland.

“If we destabilize the carbon net uptake, that will destabilize climate even more,” said lead author Marcos Fernández, researcher at the Center for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF). “It’s like a positive feedback loop. As you destabilize the carbon balance, then the climate becomes more unstable, as well.”

The most-affected regions include the Mediterranean Basin, South and Central Asia, East Africa and the west coasts of North and Central America. More specifically, mapping suggests that Kenya, India, Pakistan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Iraq are losing their ability to store carbon while in the Americas, it’s the Northern Triangle, Mexico and the west coast of the United States that are the most affected.

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

“For the first time, we’ve demonstrated that for certain regions of the world, the land might be reaching a tipping point in terms of its ability to host significantly forested land and absorb significant amounts of carbon,” said co-author Patrick McGuire, a staff meteorologist at the University of Reading and the National Centre for Atmospheric Science in the UK.

****

“We need to take care of our land better and not let all the trees get cut down and converted to cropland,” McGuire said. “Trees can hold a lot more carbon than crops or grasslands.”

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

The question is “how did the authors come to that conclusion?” The article was fortunately published with a sharing token from Mongabay, so perhaps you can access it.  Sadly I can’t copy the paragraphs that describe the authors’ thinking. but it’s something like if we measure variability in carbon uptake from year to year that might mean “ecosystems” are in trouble.  They talk about Net Biome Production or NBP.

We can access and copy the peer reviewers comments, though, and they explain perhaps better.. .

Fernandez-Martinez et al. take an interesting and novel approach by analysing changes in the interannual variability and autocorrelation of NBP to infer potential early warning signals for a “destabilization” of the terrestrial carbon sink.

Now it could be that internannual variation of NBP might be early warning signals for “destabilization” but first we’d have to define what destabilization means..  and some of us might want to see some evidence that points in that direction.  I don’t think there is any evidence of a link, just conjecture that there might be with calculations using data from Cams and Carboscope.

Anyway, it appears that CAMS and Carboscope are estimates of carbon in the atmosphere.  TRENDY appears to be a vegetation simulation.

My take: they  took two models at the global level for veg and atmospheric carbon. They used a term “destabilization” without making clear exactly what they meant.  And concluded that trees could die.

What is interesting about these kinds of papers is that they take datasets of unknown quality, define things without understanding or describing mechanisms, and then.. ask for monitoring to see if the results mean anything in the real world.

Last sentence of the paper..

Hence, regions showing increased variability and autocorrelations should be monitored in detail to properly understand the mechanisms and consequences behind these changes given that increasing variability and autocorrelation have been shown to act as early-warning signals preceding abrupt phase transitions in simulations of ecosystem functioning.

(so far observations in the “real world” have not entered in.

Here’s my fave:

Given the main role of climate change as a driver of these changes in their temporal behavior, mitigating climate change is needed to prevent further unforeseen changes in land C sinks.

I think you could probably say that without all this data. Here’s my take:

-Climate change affects trees (among other things)

-Trees sequester and store carbon

-With climate change, tree species may slow down growth or may be unable to live, and be replaced by shrubs or grass or desert.

-And we don’t know exactly what will happen one way or the other- nor can we really, because trees and forest ecosystems are so complex.

-Nevertheless, mitigating climate change is a good idea.

There.. was that so hard?

If we thought western mesic forests were in danger, perhaps we could look for signs that those trees were in serious trouble. What signs would those be?

A Whole New Perspective on Boulders!

by

One of the Toiyabe National Forest’s larger fires of my fire prevention guard era was ignited by a discarded cigarette around noon on June 27, 1966. This blaze, on the Carson Ranger District about a dozen miles south of Reno, quickly blew up and crossed the Nevada state highway which led to the Slide Mountain Ski Area and Lake Tahoe. All traffic on this busy road was stopped. Significant resources—residences, a ski area, a beautifully-timbered watershed—were threatened.

A new Forest Service tractor-lowboy rig, transporting a bulldozer for fireline construction, was trapped on the highway by the fire it was to help control. The truck driver and cat skinner escaped, but the rig and cat were destroyed. The Toiyabe had a real project fire on its hands.

Fire Boss Blaine Cornell sized up the situation. A spot weather forecast called for strong down-canyon winds and low humidity through the afternoon. He planned to stop the fire’s rapid eastward spread toward homes and ranches first, then control its mountainous northern and western flanks. Manpower and equipment were ordered for a four-sector fire, and that’s where I came in.

When the forest supervisor’s office requested two qualified crew bosses for the night shift from the Bridgeport Ranger District, range conservationist Ken Genz and I were dispatched to the fire. It was dark by the time we first saw the fire—a hellish orange glow along a two-mile front atop a ridge off to the West—from the Washoe Valley. The Galena Creek Fire would be the biggest I had ever fought. We turned off U.S. 395 and made our way to the fire camp.

Ken and I arrived just in time for night shift assignments and too late to eat. We gulped black coffee during a quick briefing around a map board. By then, the fire’s eastward run had been stopped by a backfire. The night shift would build a three-mile line around its northern and western flanks. Two line locators were needed, and we were them. Our job was to lead cats up both flanks to head the fire off during the cool night hours. Crews with hand tools would follow our cats at a safe distance, improving the lines that would link up along the top of the ridge and corral the fire by morning. Except for the cats Ken and I would be leading, we’d be on our own.

After the usual delays inherent in working with heavy equipment, I was leading my cat up the fire’s northern flank.

The night was dark, but the fire on my left provided so much light I didn’t need the headlamp on my hardhat. Trees continued to torch but, as expected, the fire was now advancing more slowly. I soon had the hang of nighttime line locating, and worked the cat as close to the fire as I could while avoiding heavy timber that would slow it down. I put all I knew—and all the cat skinner knew—about firefighting into the job, and we made steady progress along the fire’s flank as the night wore on.

As far as I know, I made only one mistake that night. But it was a big one, and I came close to paying dearly for violating a cardinal rule. Carelessly allowing myself to get downslope of the cat, I suddenly gained a whole new perspective on boulders. I survived.

Just after dawn, Ken and I tied our cat lines together. If not yet controlled, the Galena Creek Fire was contained. The sector boss arrived as I enjoyed the views of Lake Tahoe and Washoe Lake. Fresh crews were on their way up the mountain to relieve the night shift, and we were to return to the fire camp. Food and rest at last! Well, almost. First we had to get there.

Wanting to see the rest of the fire, I opted to walk off the mountain along Ken’s cat line. The effects of the fire’s rapid and erratic spread were obvious. While most of the area inside the line was blackened, some small islands of timber had been bypassed and were as green as ever. By the time I hit the state highway, which I would follow for about three miles to the fire camp, the sun had chased the chill from the morning air. I met fresh crews on their way to the western flank.

After a while, I came upon the remains of the trapped tractor-lowboy and cat rig. A nice new outfit only a day before, it was all blistered metal and burned rubber. I walked on through yesterday’s cool, green forest—now a charred and smoldering wasteland.

About that time, at ten o’clock in the morning, the Galena Creek Fire was declared controlled at just over 1,200 acres. Two homes had burned.

After night shift assignments, during which the previous night’s initial attack line locater was that night’s mop-up squad boss, Ken and I were released and returned to Bridgeport.

 

Adapted from the 2018 third edition of Toiyabe Patrol, the writers memoir of five U.S. Forest Service summers on the Toiyabe National Forest in the 1960s.

Fire Retardant Legislation in Congress: Introduction of HR 1586 and Companion Bill in Senate

by
The San Bernardino National Forest team works on the Pilot Fire behind Ryan Nuckol’s home in Hesperia on August 9th, 2016. The pink fire retardant line is one of the reasons why fire crews were able to save the home from the fire. Don Tuffs for KPCC.

Speaking of the co-evolution of statutes and court cases, and the idea that talking to all kinds of people- practitioners, academics, stakeholders- involved and hashing things out in dialogue is a better way to develop policy than behind settlement doors..

it looks like Andy has been successful at creating a bipartisan effort to do just that with regard to fire retardant.. check out this piece from the Plumas News.

Citing the importance of using fire retardant as an important tool for the Forest Service in fighting wild land fires, Congress is taking action.

Representatives Doug LaMalfa (R – CA) and Jimmy Panetta (D – CA) introduced the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023 today, March 14. This bill creates a Clean Water Act exemption for federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies to use fire retardant to fight wildfires. Fire retardant is an essential tool used to contain or slow the spread of wildfires. Currently the Forest Service and other agencies are operating under the assumption that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for the use of fire retardant because the regulations specifically state that fire control is a “non-point source silvicultural activity” and communications from EPA dating back to 1993 indicated a permit is not required.

This bill is being introduced because an environmental group is suing the Forest Service under the Clean Water Act to require a NPDES permit to use fire retardant, and they have requested an injunction on the use of fire retardant until the Forest Service receives this permit, which could take years. If the injunction is granted and fire retardant is not available for use in the 2023 fire year, firefighters and individuals living in forested areas would be in peril, millions of acres of forested land would be in danger, and billions of dollars of infrastructure would be at risk.

Congressmen LaMalfa and Panetta were joined by 22 Members of Congress: Reps. Dan Newhouse (R-WA), John Duarte (R-CA), Russ Fulcher (R-ID), Tom McClintock (R-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Austin Scott (R-GA), Amata Radewagen (R-AS), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Young Kim (R-CA), Ryan Zinke (R-MT), Blake Moore (R-UT), Burgess Owens (R-UT), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Pete Stauber (R-MN), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Mary Miller (R-IL), Kevin Kiley (R-CA), and Matt Rosendale (R-MT).

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R – WY) introduced a companion bill in the Senate.

There’s a hearing on March 23, 2023 at 2 PM eastern which includes this bill, HR 1586. Here’s a link.

Giving EPA power over more aspects of a land management agency’s work could be a recipe for disaster, as per the GAO report we discussed last week.

Side note for those of you who know more about this.. if the drops in water are due to accidents or safety, how would getting a permit help with that? It seems to me that if there are things to be fixed, fixing should be approached directly, not through the EPA. But maybe the court case is just leverage for fixing.

Should ANILCA Access Provisions Apply Outside Alaska? New Case by Wilderness Workshop and Rocky Mountain Wild

by

The White River National Forest has approved year-round access and paving of Forest Service Road 780, a summer-only route above Edwards, to provide access to the proposed 19-home Berlaimont Estates project. (Jason Blevins, The Colorado Sun)
This is usually Jon territory, but since it’s in Colorado…
Interesting story by Jason Blevins at the Colorado Sun. Basically the plaintiffs are charging that ANILCA shouldn’t apply outside Alaska. Calling its use by Supervisor Fitzwilliams an “artful dodge” (plaintiffian hyperbole) is kind of silly in my view. TSW veterans of the great Village at Wolf Creek controversy (or as I called it “reasonable access for unreasonable people”) and other access issues across the country will know that Scott didn’t just dream it up.. after all, as the article says, the FS has been using the legal precedent since the 9th Circuit called it in 1981, and is certainly what FS folks are told by their lawyers.

has been deployed many times in the West and in Colorado to force the Forest Service to provide roads across public land to access islands of private property.

To me it says reasonable access and reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. Should this be changed to “not required to provide any kind of access?” Seems to me that that question should go back to Congress. Many of us could help with stories on the difficulties of interpreting “reasonable,” and ideas for useful clarifications. That’s one reason I prefer not to let courts handle these things..they can say what’s wrong, but can’t tell us what’s right, or what could work better.

Extra points to Jason for explaining this complex stuff accurately (or at least as far as I can tell) and attaching the complaint and a link to the precedent case Montana Wilderness Association v. US Forest Service. And Bob Zybach and others will appreciate that he spelled out how to pronounce FLPMA and ANILCA. If you appreciate his work, please consider sending him a note. Remember that old management idea “catch people doing something right”?

You don’t hear much about FLPMA and the Forest Service, since FLPMA is generally regarded as a BLM statute, based on the definition of public lands in it. See here.

This Complaint involves Forest Service decisions regarding National Forest System lands in Western Colorado. Defendants applied the mandatory access provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3101 et seq. (“ANILCA”) instead of the discretionary access provisions in the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”) that apply to federal public lands outside of Alaska, including National Forests. 43 U.S.C. § 1740 of 1976 (“Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within the National Forest System, shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of [FLPMA]” when considering access requests.). The National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq., (“NFMA”) also applies to the National Forests, but because access issues were inadvertently omitted from NFMA, the access provisions involving National Forests were included in FLPMA. Applying ANILCA’s Alaska-specific provisions to an access request
involving the National Forest in the Lower 48 States is contrary to the plain language of ANILCA and FLPMA.

It sounds like the FS was supposed to promulgate rules in NFMA.. did they? Lands people out there?

Check out the judges’ decision in that case, which goes back to mind-curdling details of the legislative history. And it returns to Colorado.

The appellees, however, have uncovered subsequent legislative history that, given the closeness of the issue, is decisive. Three weeks after Congress passed the Alaska Lands Act, a House-Senate Conference Committee considering the Colorado Wilderness Act interpreted § 1323 of the Alaska Lands Act as applying nation-wide:

Section 7 of the Senate amendment contains a provision pertaining to access to non-Federally owned lands within national forest wilderness areas in Colorado. The House bill has no such provision.
The conferees agreed to delete the section because similar language has already passed Congress in Section 1323 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Should be an interesting case..

The specific White River case seems to be about a summer only unpaved road being changed to an all-season paved road. We discussed it here, but it seemed like that story was used to take a swipe at Trump-era NEPA regs. And yet, here we still are…

Inciweb Wildfire History Lost?

by

I’ve studied and written about US wildfires for many years. InciWeb, the US government wildfire information system, is a great resource for current fires, but not past fires. Until a few years ago, information about fires over the years was available by searching the site — very helpful for researching past fires. That archive is no longer available, at least not via InciWeb — oly current or very recent fires are listed. I’ve been looking into the 2020 Riverside Fires in Oregon, specifically trying to find out if the cause was determined to be arcing or downed power lines. Can’t seem to find that information anywhere. Only speculation.

Anyone know if that InciWeb archive, or something like it, is available online?

And does anyone know about the Riverside fire? Google tells me that the fire was deemed caused by human activity, but whether or not it was down power lines is unclear. Odd. I’d expect that this information would be easily available.

Andrus Center “Re-Creating Public Land Recreation” Conference April 18- in Person and Virtual- TSW Reporting Opportunity

by

This sounds really interesting but I have a conflict. Please contact me if you would like to attend and report on it for TSW, TSW will pay registration. Even if you go in person :).
Here’s the link to register.

On Tuesday, April 18th, the Andrus Center will host an in person environmental conference focused on recreation and public lands with an eye towards resolving tensions and furthering best practices. Public lands act as anchoring institutions for surrounding communities. This conference, Re-creating Public Land Recreation, will celebrate the popularity of outdoor recreation on public lands and convene a dialogue over how to improve policies and funding, and collaborating across shared recreation spaces.

The conference is scheduled as a 7:30 am to 5 pm in person event and will be followed by a white paper. Due to the capacity of the venue, a virtual attendance option will be available.

Conference speakers will represent Federal and Tribal land managers, State and Local governments, and NGO and business leaders with expertise in recreation. Panel discussions will center on three themes:

Collaboration, especially working across jurisdictional proximities;
Funding, especially to overcome infrastructure and operational shortfalls;
Policy, especially shortfalls of current laws and policies.

Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy-Stone Manning will deliver the lunch keynote address and will discuss ideas about what we can do together–with industry, partners, and land management agencies–to meet the challenges ahead. Former Montana Governor and Chair of the Foundation for America’s Public Lands (the charitable partner of the Bureau of Land Management, the new BLM foundation), Steve Bullock will address the emerging role of foundations and philanthropy to fill gaps and catalyze action. The remaining speaker lineup will be posted soon!

Registration for the full-day in person event is $85 and discounted student tickets are available thanks to the generosity of sponsors. There will also be registration for online viewing of the event for $20.

If you’re interested in representing us and reporting, please contact me.

Public Lands Litigation – update through mid-March, 2023

by

Supreme Court declines review of Safari Club International v. Haaland (9th Cir. 2022)

In 2022, the Ninth Circuit upheld a 2016 Fish and Wildlife Service regulation that, among other things, prohibits brown bear baiting on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.  The circuit court had held that Congress has authority under the Property Clause of the Constitution to preempt state law and protect the wildlife on federal lands.  The Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal by the plaintiffs.

Criminal conviction

A federal magistrate judge in Alaska sentenced a Fairbanks man to pay a fine for unlawfully conducting a tour on BLM land without a permit. Federal law requires tour operators to have a Special Use Permit to sell or operate tours on federal land in order to protect visitors and the land.

New lawsuit:  Colorado Off Road Enterprise v. USDA Forest Service (D. Colo.)

This case was filed on Februrary 13, and we have discussed it  here.

  • Multi-species ESA listing litigation

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Ariz.)

On March 7, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging noncompliance with various deadlines in the process for listing 12 plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act.  They include two species of alligator snapping turtles, and a fish species threatened by lithium mining and geothermal development in Nevada.  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

The next day, one of the eastern freshwater mussel species involved in the lawsuit, the round hickorynut, was listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (along with another mussel species, the longsolid).  Similar to the California spotted owl listing, an exemption from incidental take prohibitions was established, in this case for forest management that implements state-approved best management practices.  (The “good” news is that these species are found “largely where federally protected mussels already occur, so any increased regulatory burden is expected to be minimal.”)

Partial court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. D.C.)

Also the next day, on March 8, in an ongoing similar case involving delayed protection of 231 species, the district court reduced the number of species because the listing determination had been completed for one species, listing petitions had been withdrawn for four species, and inadequate notice of intent to sue was given for one species.  The court rejected a motion to dismiss the complaint with regard to 219 species because the violation of ESA’s continuing obligation to make 12-month finding prevents invoking the 6-year statute of limitations.  (The article has a link to the opinion.)

Court decision in Friends of the Inyo v. U. S. Forest Service (E.D. Cal.)

On March 9, the district court allowed an exploratory gold drilling operation on the Inyo National Forest to proceed.  The proposal would largely involve drilling deeper than prior exploration in the same area, but it is in an area which is habitat for the bi-state sage-grouse (currently proposed for listing under the ESA).  The court approved the use of two separate categorical exclusions related to short-term mining impacts and wildlife habitat improvement.

On March 9, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed its review to comply with a September 20, 2021 court-ordered remand of the Service’s previous “not warranted” finding for the Joshua tree. It found again that the species is not warranted for listing.

New lawsuit:  Wilderness Workshop v. Harrell (D. D.C.)

On March 13, Wilderness Workshop and Rocky Mountain Wild filed a lawsuit to overturn the White River National Forest’s Record of Decision for the Berlaimont Estates Road Improvement Project. Issued on Friday, March 10, this decision would facilitate a developer’s plan to build 19 new mansions on 680 acres surrounded by deer and elk winter range in the White River National Forest.  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

New lawsuits:

Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Alaska v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Alaska)

Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Alaska)

On March 13, the Biden Administration approved the Willow oil drilling project on the Naval Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.  This followed a court reversal of a previous Trump Administration approval, and two new lawsuits were immediately filed by environmental and indigenous groups.  There are ESA claims involving federally threatened polar bears and other species, and alleged violations of NEPA, including effects of greenhouse gases, and limiting the range of alternatives considered because of a “mistaken conclusion” that the agency lacked the authority to deny or significantly curtail the ConocoPhillips project, including failure to consider eliminating “special areas.”  ANILCA and the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act are also implicated.  (The article includes links to both complaints.)

In another case, applicable in part to the Willow project, the Alaska district court held that federal law preempted state law, and therefore that ConocoPhillips could withhold well data from the public for the duration of the lease (rather than a shorter time period provided by state law).

 

There was some news in a couple of ongoing Forest Service project lawsuits:

Oral argument in Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S. Forest Service (S.D. Ohio)

The Sunny Oaks project on the Wayne National Forest involves clearcutting white oak trees (discussed previously here).  It also involved the interpretation of forest plan standards that require the agency to maintain 12 trees with loose bark per acre, like oaks and hickories, to provide habitat for endangered Indiana bats.  At the hearing, the Forest Service attorney apparently argued that, in the project area, there aren’t that many trees with loose bark, and he said the agency has the flexibility to not follow the standard.  (This reminds me of an argument that, because a project area didn’t meet an elk cover standard already, it was ok to remove more cover, which I don’t think was a winning argument.)

Plaintiffs’ brief filed in Los Padres Forest Watch v. U. S. Forest Service (C.D. Cal.)

This project on the Los Padres National Forest involves “removal of trees and native chaparral across 775 acres of a unique ridgeline that harbors rare plants and animals and is important to local Chumash tribes.”  It is “one of the most controversial decisions ever issued in Los Padres National Forest.”  In April, 2022, six environmental organizations, the City of Ojai and the County of Ventura, challenged the use of a categorical exclusion, as well as “failing to provide annual updates to Congress on how many times the agency has invoked the loophole.”  The brief (a link is provided in the article) also addresses violations of the Endangered Species Act (California condors) and the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

 

DOE and BLM: Seemingly Contradictory Energy Strategy

by
Secretary Granholm at CeraWeek .Bloomberg photo.

Right hand-left hand. Interior vs. Energy.. with the White House as referee or ????

I’d like to start with Secretary Granholm’s statement at CERA week. From an article at E&E News..Energywire (open access).

The Biden administration’s seemingly contradictory energy and climate strategy was on full display here Wednesday: Try to pivot away from fossil fuels, but promote them for now.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm faced that paradox as she addressed energy leaders and insiders gathered in a hotel ballroom, praising the uptick in U.S. oil and gas exports during Russia’s war in Ukraine while touting a clean energy shift.

“Europe is poised to reach the spring without major outages or shortages, and that’s thanks in no small part to many in this room, who have been producing and exporting and working with the U.S. and with allies,” Granholm said.

“Indeed, the U.S. has become in this year an indispensable energy partner to our allies and a global energy powerhouse,” she said to applause.

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

Meanwhile, in another blow to the fossil fuel sector, the Biden administration said this week that a new five-year plan for offshore oil and gas drilling may be delayed until December (Greenwire, March 8).

To “complete all necessary analyses, approvals, and mandatory procedural steps, Interior requires until December 2023 to finish and approve the next Program,” said Walter Cruickshank, deputy director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, in a legal filing.

That prompted a sharp rebuke from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a key architect of the Inflation Reduction Act and a fossil fuel ally.

“The Department of the Interior made it painfully clear — again — that they are putting their radical climate agenda ahead of our nation’s energy security, and they are willing to go to great lengths to do it,” Manchin said in a statement Wednesday, saying the December deadline is “18 months late.”

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

Despite Granholm’s comments commending the fossil fuel sector, she used much of her speech to champion a clean energy transition.

Granholm announced $6 billion in new grants for industrial decarbonization projects, which may involve carbon capture and hydrogen. And she urged the fossil fuel sector to help develop those and other technologies.

“The U.S. is the indispensable nation, and our companies are producing irresistible products. And this administration is all in on it,” Granholm said. “We need the energy sector stepping up and that certainly includes the oil and gas industry.”

“You have the skill sets and knowledge to build some of these critical technologies at scale,” she said.

There’s also a story at Bloomberg that looks interesting but is paywalled:
Energy Secretary Granholm Changes the Tune on Big Oil
Just five months ago, President Biden was accusing the oil industry of profiteering. Yesterday, his energy secretary went to Houston to shower executives with praise.

You’d almost think there are three loci of control… the pragmatic DOE, the ideological DOI and the White House trying to placate key Demo interest groups without going to far into doing things that won’t look good for the 2024 election. The oil and gas industry.. demonized by some, and flagellated to produce more by others in the same Admin. If I were a political science professor, I would find this fascinating. What causes agency divergence? Career feds, or loyalties of politicals to the interest groups they came from? When are divergences tolerated, and when are they expunged?

GAO Report on EPA’s Coordination (or Not) with Other Federal Agencies on Wildfire Smoke

by

I’m one of many people who has had the opportunity to be in interagency conflict resolution meetings, in my case FS, ACE and EPA.  My own experience (based on a few incidents) is that some EPA employees have an attitude toward land management agencies that is not conducive to collaboration.  Their attitude seemed to be “we know more than you do”, which they didn’t, and “we are more righteous than you” which they weren’t.  At the same time, I have to say that one of the best people I’ve ever worked with was a political appointee at EPA (a lawyer and law professor) during the Clinton administration. So I’m not saying they’re all like that.. but I’ve run into a few.

The theme of the next few posts  is “right hand and left hand” or… are federal agencies aligned in the same direction? I think all of us agree that federal tax dollars should not be wasted or mismanaged by opposing government programs (if it can be avoided) and that for important topics like decarbonization or wildfires, agencies should be aligned.  It’s the administration’s job to make sure that happens and enforce it within the executive branch. We’ve discussed before this EPA PM 2.5 thing. Too bad the GAO didn’t explore how the proposed rule could have gotten all the way to OIRA before anyone noticed it was a problem. That could really shed some light on coordination processes and efficacy. Thanks to alert TSW readers for noticing this GAO report.

Here’s a link to the GAO Report, published on March 13, titled “Wildfire Smoke:Opportunities to Strengthen Federal Efforts to Manage Growing Risks.”

It could be that there are so many wildfire commissions and task forces nowadays that the idea of high-level officials actually engaging with each other and resolving disputes has fallen by the wayside. Which is of great concern. So while the EPA says they will respond to the need for “better coordination” with land management agencies, they haven’t actually pulled the plug on revising the 2.5 NAAQS. Maybe they have sent signals to high level folks at USDA and Interior, but it would be nice for us here in the cheap seats to also get the message.

Here is the National Association of Forest Service Retirees letter on the proposed rulemaking, which I also received last week. If they are standing down on this for prescribed fire, it would save work by many in our space. If they are not standing down- well actions speak louder than words about “coordinating.” Maybe the need is for less “coordination” and more “woodshed.”

 

I’m always a fan of coordinating research..does this seem like something the USG should institute as a matter of course for research topics?

Additionally, officials from the CDC said that creating a framework for coordinating research related to community preparedness for wildfire smoke could help federal agencies more intentionally plan such research and create a community of practice on the topic.

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

Here’s the air curtain discussion…

Also, to remove barriers to certain wildfire risk mitigation strategies, EPA officials said that the agency could, for example, finalize its proposed rule related to permit requirements for air curtain incinerators. Air curtain incinerators are devices for burning debris collected through methods such as mechanical thinning.92 According to EPA officials, these devices offer an alternative to prescribed burns and have much fewer emissions than burning debris piles or prescribed burns

And ..According to Forest Service officials, the use of air curtain incinerators helps reduce woody fuel on a site but does not necessarily reduce the need for prescribed burns to reduce fine surface fuels.

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

I thought it was interesting to compare the views of the FS and BLM (Interior), who conceivably have the same issues:

In its written comments, USDA stated that the role of the Forest Service in responding to wildfire smoke and protecting public health, as well as the importance of mitigation efforts to address smoke impacts associated with
the wildfire crisis, was captured well in our report, and that this role and mitigation are critical to long-term efforts for wildfire risk reduction. USDA also stated that, as the environmental impacts of catastrophic wildfire
extend far beyond air quality, effectively implementing our recommendations requires focused collaboration beyond smoke and its impacts to public health. USDA said that only focusing on the effect of wildfire smoke on public health minimizes the breadth of the current crisis impacting the natural and human environment and neutralizes the most effective mitigation tool that also mimics natural processes—prescribed fire, which, according to USDA, can be managed to minimize impacts on public health.

In addition, USDA said that, as air quality standards become more stringent, expanded interagency discussions are needed to ensure the increased use of prescribed burning as the primary mitigation to catastrophic wildfire. USDA said that bolstering current authorities and approaches mentioned in our draft report should balance impacts on firefighter and public safety, water quality, and protection of municipal water supplies, among other environmental effects. As discussed in our report, EPA has raised other concerns related to the increased use of prescribed burning. We believe USDA would have important opportunities to raise these and related issues as it works with EPA and Interior to
implement our recommendation to better align air quality and land management goals.

 

Here’s Interior, which seems like the answer is “we’ll hire more people.”

In its written comments, Interior stated that to achieve our recommendation to work with EPA and USDA to better align air quality and land management goals, it plans to increase staffing to plan for and manage smoke emissions at the departmental and bureau levels and to work across agencies at the national and regional levels, as well as with tribal, state, and local governments and other external partners. Interior also stated that its management of air quality and wildfire risk mitigation goals will include an increasingly wide array of communications, data management, planning, budget development, wildfire operations, environmental justice efforts, and fuels management implementation, which will be supported by its additional staffing. Interior said these efforts will be initiated this year and will enable coordination of its existing efforts with EPA and USDA and the joint development of further efforts. Interior stated that this will support efforts to increase the pace and scale of fuels management treatments and address the overall wildfire risk reduction objectives included in the  Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The actions Interior described, if implemented effectively, would address our recommendation.

Pielke Jr.: Three rules for making sense of “event attribution” studies.

by

Roger Pielke Jr. has a blog post of interest: “How to be a smart consumer of climate attribution claims:
Three rules for making sense of “event attribution” studies.” I read this with an eye toward attributing megafires to climate change.

Excerpt:

Recent years have seen a proliferation of single “event attribution” claims that are quickly churned out in the aftermath of notable extreme weather events. These analyses typically lead with strong claims of a connection between climate change and the event that just happened.

Last month I explained a bit about such claims:

Single-event attribution uses climate models to calculate the odds that a particular extreme event was made more likely as a direct and attributable consequence of human-caused climate change. Such studies generally look at two scenarios, one a counterfactual based on no increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and the other with observed increased concentrations. Then, models run under the two different scenarios are compared to see if the probability of extreme events similar to the one in question became more likely in the model runs with more greenhouse gases.

Today, I offer three rules for accepting such claims from a scientific perspective consistent with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Event attribution claims are worth scrutiny because their underlying methodology was developed explicitly to support climate lawsuits, promote climate advocacy and attract media attention. You can read more about the politics of such claims here. [emphasis added]

It is troubling that I feel like I have to say this out loud — We should not allow the political significance of a topic to overshadow scientific rigor.