USDA Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities Grants Announced Today- Here Are the Forest Related Ones

by

A while back, many of us participated in the Climate Smart Ag and Forestry comment period.  Based on the responses, the USDA is funding some pilot programs. I started with the western forest ones then moved to eastern, there might also be a western ranching one in there. Here’s the link if you want to check out the others.

Building the Climate-Smart Wood Economy

This project brings together Tribal, small family forest, and nonprofit wood producers with data scientists and the design and construction industry to manage and restore tens of thousands of acres in Oregon. The project will quantify the positive impacts of climate-smart management on carbon sequestration, wildfire intensity, and cultural values, and will also build resources for project teams to navigate climate-smart markets for wood procurement through pre-design, design, and construction phases and support sale.

Lead Partner: Sustainable Northwest
Other Major Partners: Sustainable Northwest, EcoTrust, Northwest Natural Resources Group, Trout Mountain Forestry, Vibrant Planet, Intertribal Timber Council, Coquille Indian Tribe, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Yakama Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Nisqually Tribe
Primary States Expected: OR, WA, Tribal
Major Commodities: Forest Products

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $25,000,000

 

Forest to Home

This project seeks to convert industrial timber and traditional forest product manufacturing to a BIPOC-owned supply chain for residential/commercial construction. The project will educate early adopters in forestry, tribes, black, and rural communities on benefits of climate-smart forest practices to maximize carbon sequestration. Timber harvested will be used to build housing units for underserved communities.

Lead Partner: Forterra NW
Other Major Partners: Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Yakama Nation, Abu Bakr Islamic Center, RJ Group, Aspect Structural Engineers, Gordian Knot Strategies, Sustainable Northwest, Zaugg and Whitehorse Timber, Snohomish County, Town of Darrington, Port of Portland, Roslyn Downtown Assoc, Town of Hamilton, City of Tacoma, X-Caliber Rural Capital
Primary States Expected: WA
Major Commodities: Timber, Forest Products

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $20,000,000

 

TRACT Program: Traceable Reforestation for America’s Carbon and Timber

This project builds climate-smart markets for timber and forest products and addresses the need to expand and recover the nation’s forest estate to balance the demand for wood products with the increasing need for forests to serve as carbon reservoirs. The project will deploy funding, planning, and implementation of reforestation and afforestation activities in lands deforested by wildfire in the Western U.S. and degraded agricultural lands in the Southern U.S. Every acre planted and the volume of forest products generated will have a quantified and verified climate benefit in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

Lead Partner: Oregon Climate Trust
Other Major Partners: Arbor Day Carbon, Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, Nez Perce Tribe, TerraCarbon
Primary States Expected: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, ID, LA, MS, MT, NC, NM, OK, OR, SC, TN, TX, WA, WY, Tribal
Major Commodities: Timber, Forest Products

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $15,000,000

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

Building a Regenerative Ranching Economy in the West

This project will expand climate-smart markets for beef and implement climate-smart grazing practices in beef production for 120 operations across 13 states, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing market returns for participants.

Lead Partner: Sustainable Northwest
Other Major Partners: Country Natural Beef, Beef Northwest, Northway Ranch Services, Syracuse University, Quantis International, Stockpot Collective, Washington State University, Colorado State University, RaboResearch & Food Agribusiness-North America
Primary States Expected: AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, TX, UT, WA, WY
Major Commodities: Beef, Corn, Wheat, Alfalfa

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $10,000,000

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

Expanding Agroforestry Production and Markets

This project will build climate-smart markets and increase capital investments in tree planting that will increase the supply of agroforestry commodities utilizing a network of leaders in forestry. This will work directly with manufacturers and retailers to connect potential buyers with producers (including underserved producers).

Lead Partner: The Nature Conservancy
Other Major Partners: Propagate, Savanna Institute, Tuskegee University, University of MO Center for Agroforestry, VA Tech, Hawai’i ‘Ulu Cooperative, Appalachian Sustainable Development, Canopy Farm Management, Cargill, Handsome Brook Farm, NY Tree Crop Alliance, Practical Farmers of IA, Resource Environmental Solutions, Sustainable Farming Association, Trees Forever, Trees for Graziers, University of Illinois, Association For Temperate Agroforestry, Osage Nation, Agroforestry Partners, Live Oak Bank, Walnut Level Capital, Yard Stick, Propagate, Working Trees, University of Hawaii, Cargill, Danone, Applegate, Epic Institute, General Mills, Current Cassis, Hawaii Ulu Cooperative, Simple Mills, Hawaii Foodservice Alliance, 1890 Consortium, AgLaunch Early Adopter Network, Lincoln University, and Tuskegee University
Primary States Expected: AL, AR, CT, DE, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WI
Major Commodities: Nuts, Berries, Beef, Fruit Trees, Forest Products

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $60,000,000

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

NYS Connects: Climate-Smart Farms and Forests

Utilizing behavioral systems approach to break through social norms/barriers, this project will build on strong existing partnerships in the conservation and agricultural communities in NY state to expand climate-smart markets. This project will fund ag producers/forest landowners to implement multiple climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices, utilize modern tools to quantify results of climate-smart agriculture, and build connections between landowners and companies with a demand for climate-smart commodities.

Lead Partner: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Other Major Partners: NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Dept. of Agriculture and Markets, Energy Research & Development Authority & Soil and Water Conservation Committee, Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse University, County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Evidn, Michigan State University, Mercy Works, Cervantes Farm, Cornell Small Farms Equitable Farm Futures Initiative & Veterans FarmOps program, Cornell Cooperative Extension Harvest NY urban ag team, International Refugee Committee NY, Rosario Brothers Farm, Snug Harbor Cultural Center & Botanic Garden, Mercy Works, Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University, West Haven Farms
Primary States Expected: NY
Major Commodities: Dairy, Forest Products

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $60,000,000

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

Engaging Family Forests to Improve Climate-Smart Commodities (EFFICACI)

This project will address the relationship between family forest owners, the forest products industry, and broader climate goals across the eastern US. The goal is to build a region-wide climate-smart commodity (CSC) forest program that leverages the field-tested Family Forest Carbon Program, an engaged and trusted landowner network, and advanced digital forestry tools to engage traditional and underserved partners and advance the production and marketing of CSC forest products.

Lead Partner: American Forest Foundation
Other Major Partners: The Nature Conservancy, Purdue University, Center for Heirs Property Preservation, Women Owning Woodlands
Primary States Expected: AL, GA, IN, KY, MD, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV
Major Commodities: Timber, Forest Products

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $35,000,000

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

New England Climate-Smart Forest Partnership Project

This project will implement forest management practices with large commercial producers and smaller woodlot owners to store more carbon in the forest, quantify the resulting carbon gains, and build markets for climate-smart forest products to store carbon in wood products and substitute wood products for fossil fuel-based materials.

Lead Partner: New England Forestry Foundation
Other Major Partners: Seven Islands, Weyerhauser, Wagner Woodlands, Baskahegan, Robbins Lumber, Pasamoquoddy Forestry Dept, UMaine, Nature Conservancy, Mohawk Trail Woodlands Partnership, Mass Tree Farm Program, Hull Forestlands, Heyes Family Forests, trust to Conserve Northeast forestlands, American Forest Foundation, Spatial informatic group, Innov. Natural Res. Solutions, Spritios Properties, Leers Weinzapfel Assoc, Quantified Ventures, Woodworks, Forest Stewards Guild, Mas Audobon, Our climate common, Highstead Foundation, Mass Forest Alliance, CT Forest & Park Assoc, Appalach. Mtn Club. Mass Woodlands Institute
Primary States Expected: ME, MA, NH, VT, CT, RI
Major Commodities: Timber, Forest Products

Approximate Funding Ceiling: $30,000,000

Public Lands Litigation Summary – Late Summer, 2022

by

It’s been remarkably quiet on the litigation front for the Forest Service, apparently going almost a month without a new case or a court court decision (and we haven’t seen a Forest Service litigation summary since July 8).  But here’s some things that involve other agencies or might affect national forests.

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Little (D. Idaho)

Plaintiffs contend that Idaho’s gray wolf trapping and snaring laws and regulations are reasonably certain to cause the unlawful “take” of grizzly bears and Canada lynx in violation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act.  On August 22, the district court denied plaintiffs’ petition for a temporary restraining order because the evidence presented of past incidents occurring does not show that these new regulations are likely to cause future harm.

Notice of intent to sue.

On August 23, The Center for Biological Diversity notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it intends to sue over the agency’s failure to develop a national wolf recovery plan as required by the Endangered Species Act. The planned lawsuit would seek to require the Service to draft a recovery plan that includes all populations of wolves in the contiguous United States.  The news release includes a link to the notice.  More information may be found here.

New case:  (D. D.C.)

When we last heard about the proposed Twin Metals copper mine near the Boundary Waters Wilderness in the Superior National Forest, the Biden Administration had cancelled the necessary leases, and is considering a 20-year withdrawal from mineral entry.  On August 22, the company filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior to void the lease cancellation.

Court decision in Price v. Garland (D.C. Cir.)

On August 23, the circuit court reversed a district court opinion (discussed here) that barred the National Park Service from requiring a permit for commercial film-making in national parks because “a filmmaker does not seek to communicate with others at the location in which he or she films, (so) the filmmaker does not use the location as a ‘forum’.”  This article supports the dissenting opinion in the case.

New case:  (D. Utah)

On August 24, the State of Utah filed a new lawsuit against President Biden’s actions to enlarge the boundaries of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments.  The complaint argues that the size of the monuments violates the Antiquities Act, and the state seeks instead a “congressional solution.”

Court decision in Baker Ranches v. Zinke (D. Nevada)

Plaintiffs bring claims for rights-of-way or easements within Great Basin National Park to service its irrigation structures found within the Park.  The lands in question had until 2016 been part of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and improvements were then under a special use permit. The Park was requiring a new permit, and associated environmental review, before allowing repair or maintenance activities.  On September 1, the district court held that the claim of equitable estoppel could proceed to trial because there was some evidence that plaintiffs detrimentally relied on the Park’s prior allowance of its use of park lands to maintain and repair its irrigation pipelines.  The court rejected all claims of any ownership rights by plaintiffs or any interference with use of the water by the Park.

On September 6, the federal government announced it had prevailed in a trespass suit against a ranch that had violated the terms of its permit (some related to illegally trapping a Mexican wolf while under a prior permit), and failed to remove the cattle from the Gila National Forest when ordered to do so.  In its decision, the court determined that the ranch did not own a surface grazing estate on the allotment and that any alleged water rights on the allotment did not give them a right to graze livestock on the allotment.

New case:  South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. S.C.)

On August 18, three environmental advocacy groups in South Carolina filed a lawsuit challenging a permit to fill wetlands for a proposed 9,000-acre community adjacent to the Francis Marion National Forest.  They are primarily challenging the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for issuing a Clean Water Act permit, but the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also a defendant.  The complaint alleges that Endangered Species Act consultation on the threatened red-cockaded woodpecker failed to consider the adverse effects on the woodpeckers found on the national forest resulting from the reduced ability to conduct prescribed burning due to the adjacent housing.  The complaint is linked to the above article, and more information may be found here.  (I found no indication on the Forest Service website that they have participated in this process, but this situation was discussed here in relation to a 2014 lawsuit involving other parties.)

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

On August 25, the Center and Idaho Conservation League brought this action against the Fish and Wildlife Service’s and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authorization of the Idaho-Club Lakeside Marina Development project at the mouth of Trestle Creek on Lake Pend Oreille.  The creek is considered one of the most important spawning streams for federally protected bull trout in the Pacific Northwest, and for the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (the Forest is not mentioned in the complaint, and there is no indication on the Forest Service website that the agency has been involved). The complaint alleges violations of ESA and NEPA.  The news release above includes a link to the complaint, and more information may be found here.

INSTEAD OF LITIGATION, WHY NOT GO TO CONGRESS?

The litigation against the Trump Administration’s changes to the CEQ NEPA regulations apparently continues even though the Biden Administration has issued some new ones.  That may, in part, be because of the possibility the Trump regulations could be reinstated pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.  On August 4, the U. S. Senate voted to overturn the Biden Administration’s undoing those changes.  However, while the CRA allows Congress to reverse a recently finalized rule by simple majority vote, this measure faces an uphill battle in the House, and, if necessary, Biden would veto it.

Rio Arriba County in New Mexico has called for a congressional hearing to investigate the revised Carson National Forest Land Management Plan, citing alleged violations of NEPA and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  In an August 4 letter to Southwestern Regional Forester Michiko Martin and U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján, Rio Arriba County Manager Lucía Sánchez and County Commission Chair James Martinez wrote that Martin failed to respond to and resolve county official’s objections during the process of revising the land management plan.  The objections included concerns about fire risk and grazing reductions.  The plan was released in July.

IN OTHER PLANNING NEWS

The Forest Service says it is restarting the forest plan revision process yet again for the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla and Malheur national forests.  The Forest Service announced on Friday, Aug. 5 that the agency is putting together a team of agency employees to write draft separate management plans for each of the three national forests.  We’ve discussed their revision process previously here 

 

 

Interior outlines tribal co-management steps for agencies

by

From E&E News (subscription) today:

Interior outlines tribal co-management steps for agencies

The guidance comes out a day before a hearing on Capitol Hill on legislation that would bolster Native American tribes’ input into the use of public lands.
Excerpt:

The Interior Department today unveiled new public lands guidance to expand and support co-management of federal lands, waters and wildlife with Native American tribes.

The Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service each individually released new policy memorandums with specific measures to facilitate and support agreements with tribes to collaborate in the co-stewardship of federal lands and waters.

…

The BLM instruction memorandum mandates the bureau’s 12 state directors, within six months, will “create state-specific plans for outreach to identify co-stewardship opportunities, including identifying potential Tribal partners and sources of Indigenous Knowledge.”

And it directs the bureau to “identify opportunities for co-stewardship as part of Tribal consultation and engagement during land use planning and implementation decisions.”

H.R 5631 -Tim Hart Act as Stand-Alone Bill

by
No Grass Creek Fire East of Deer Lodge Montana, from Hotshot Wakeup Twitter feed.

The Hotshot Wakeup person I think has a good point suggesting that people contact their Representatives to urge them to support the Tim Hart Wildland Firefighter Classification and Pay Parity Act (HR 5631) as a stand-alone bill, and get it out from under being used as a political football. Here’s the link.  At least it sounds plausible to me. Other views welcome.

It looks like Liz Cheney is the only cosponsor on the R side, don’t know why that is.  Maybe someone can explain.  Maybe you, if you call your R Representative’s Office and ask them. , especially if you live in fire country.   Maybe there’s already an article about this somewhere? But please refrain from any pre-midterm-related anti-R vitriol in the comments.

PS..if you’re interested, check out the amazing fire photos and videos on The Hotshot Wakeup twitter feed.  Fire folks send them in from all over. Example on of Bolt Creek Fire in Washington.

National Prescribed Fire Program Review Report Posted

by

My thanks from me and from at least some TSW readers, to the employees and other folks who worked on this review!!

Here’s the link.

From the Chief’s letter:

Their work is an example of how we strive to hold ourselves accountable at the Forest Service, learn from our successes and mistakes, and find better ways to serve the American people and steward the lands entrusted to our care, for the benefit of current and future generations.

Here are the seven immediate actions:

A review team led by Forest Service personnel—with partner representation from municipalities, counties, States, and nongovernmental organizations from across the country—identified themes and findings to form the recommendations in this report. The Agency Co-Team Leaders made final recommendations to the Chief for immediate implementation to lift the program pause. The recommendations are tactical approaches the Forest Service can use to account for multiple factors affecting practitioners’ ability to carry out prescribed burns in a safe and effective manner.

These tactical recommendations are as follows:
1. Each Forest Service unit will review all prescribed fire plans and associated complexity analyses to ensure they reflect current conditions, prior to implementation. Prescribed fire plans and complexity analyses will be implemented only after receiving an updated approval by a technical reviewer and being certified by the appropriate agency administrator that they accurately reflect current conditions.
2. Ignition authorization briefings will be standardized to ensure consistent communication and collective mutual understanding on key points.
3. Instead of providing a window of authorized time for a planned prescribed fire, agency administrators will authorize ignitions only for the Operational Period (24 hours) for the day of
the burn. For prescribed fires requiring multi-day ignitions, agency administrators will authorize ignitions on each day. Agency administrators will document all elements required for ignition authorization.
4. Prior to ignition onsite, the burn boss will document whether all elements within the agency administrator’s authorization are still valid based on site conditions. The burn boss will also assess human factors, including the pressures, fatigue, and experience of the prescribed fire implementers.
5. Nationwide, approving agency administrators will be present on the unit for all high-complexity burns; unit line officers (or a line officer from another unit familiar with the burn unit) will be on unit for 30-40% of moderate complexity burns.
6. After the pause has been lifted, units will not resume their prescribed burning programs until forest supervisors go over the findings and recommendations in this review report with all employees involved in prescribed fire activities. Forest supervisors will certify that this has been done.
7. The Chief will designate a specific Forest Service point of contact at the national level to oversee and report on the implementation of these recommendations and on the progress made in carrying out other recommendations and considerations raised in this review report.

And additional steps

By January 1, 2023, we will establish a Western Prescribed Fire Training curriculum with the interagency fire and research community, and partners, to expand the successes of the National Interagency Prescribed Fire Training Center (NIPFTC) headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. This curriculum will incorporate the knowledge and experience of Tribes, partners, and communities and include a strategy of training and developing skills together so we can build collective capacity to expand the use of prescribed burning on National Forest System and other
lands. We will identify and provide the additional staffing needed to support this action.

By December 15, 2022, our Incident Management Organization will develop a national strategic plan for prescribed fire implementation. The plan will include implementation timing, implementation command structure, and logistics to prioritize and mobilize resources for both suppression and prescribed burning activities. This plan will include necessary staffing, funding, and monitoring to help shape future system improvements.

By December 15, 2022, we will identify a strategy, in collaboration with partners, for having crews that can be dedicated to hazardous fuels work and mobilized across the country to support the highest priority hazardous fuels reduction work.

We will continue investing in potential operational delineations (PODs) and ensure that they are used as a tool for both wildfire response and vegetative/fuels management planning.

For clarity and consistency, we will use a standardized approach for declared wildfire reviews and improve current systems for tracking findings and recommendations for continuous learning.

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

I liked the nod to PODs.

Book: A Continent Transformed by Wildfire

by

Here’s a review of a book that may be of interest to forest planners and other denizens of TSW, even if it has a focus on Canada: A Continent Transformed by Wildfire, Then and Now. Subtitle: ‘Dark Days at Noon’ author Ed Struzik on fire deniers, ‘pyro’ storms, a boreal forest ‘born to burn’ and more.

Excerpt:

You write a lot about Indigenous burning and how agencies like the national parks services on both sides of the border evicted Indigenous people from parks and protected areas — the topic of tomorrow’s Tyee excerpt from your book.

Indigenous fires reduced the amount of fuel on the ground for future fires to burn. With the end of this light burning and the strategy of full suppression that followed in and around 1910, we stacked up the woodpile, so to speak, to feed fire. Kicking Indigenous people out of national parks and protected areas because they burned lightly to regenerate grass for bison and young aspen for ungulates — there were other reasons — was unconscionable.

How do we get fire back on the landscape in a way that is beneficial rather than destructive?

We have to do more of the light burning that Indigenous people practiced. We also have to thin the forests that surround many communities in Canada. I would go as far as to suggest that cities such as Edmonton with urban forests that have not seen fire in more than a century, consider the idea before out-of-control fires come to them.

 

The Smokey Wire Information Request- FS Accountability Study and a new “What Year Was This?” Quiz

by

We’ve been discussing Forest Service accountability. Yesterday’s post was about “when things go wrong with serious impacts.” But accountability can also have a more Government Performance and Results Act-ish tone. Like the FS tells Congress it can do things with the budget and doesn’t. I think both those definitions are important, but when we use the word we need to think about the scope and scale of what we mean. In case it’s not obvious, I think the historical perspective is important because we can see what has been tried and worked or not.  Which is what adaptive organizations do, as Chelsea pointed out.  I think it’s hard to be adaptive with seemingly random and shifting political and legal constraints, but perhaps other agencies have been more successful.

I’m looking for a copy of this taskforce report as discussed in this GAO study. I remember that Tom Mills may have been the lead.  Once again, I’ll offer an opportunity to author a post to the winner of the “what year was this GAO report” quiz.

Similarly, the Forest Service has not been successful in achieving the objectives in its forest plans or implementing planned projects. For example, in response to congressional concerns about the Forest Service not being able to deliver what is expected or promised, the Chief, in the fall of 1991, formed a task force of employees from throughout the agency to review the issue of accountability. The task force’s February 1994 report set forth a seven-step process to strengthen accountability. Steps in the process include (1) establishing work agreements that include measures and standards with customer involvement, (2) assessing performance, and (3) communicating results to customers. However, the task force’s recommendations were never implemented. Rather, they were identified as actions that the agency plans to implement over the next decade.

The task force’s recommendations, as well as those in other studies, are intended to address some of the long-standing deficiencies within the Forest Service’s decision-making process that have driven up costs and time and/or driven down the ability to achieve planned objectives. These deficiencies include (1) not adequately monitoring the effects of past management decisions, (2) not maintaining a centralized system of comparable environmental and socioeconomic data, and (3) not adequately involving the public throughout the decision-making process.

Cue this song. Other findings from the same GAO report:

First, the agency has not given adequate attention to improving its decision-making process, including improving its accountability for expenditures and performance. As a result, long-standing deficiencies within its decision-making process that have contributed to increased costs and time and/or the inability to achieve planned objectives have not been corrected.


• Second, issues that transcend the agency’s administrative boundaries and jurisdiction have not been adequately addressed. In particular, the Forest Service and other federal agencies have had difficulty reconciling the administrative boundaries of national forests, parks, and other federal land management units with the boundaries of natural systems, such as watersheds and vegetative and animal communities, both in planning and in assessing the cumulative impact of federal and nonfederal activities on the environment.


• Third, the requirements of numerous planning and environmental laws, enacted primarily during the 1960s and 1970s, have not been harmonized. As a result, differences among the requirements of different laws and their differing judicial interpretations require some issues to be analyzed or reanalyzed at different stages in the different decision-making processes of the Forest Service and other federal agencies without any clear sequence leading to their timely resolution. Additional differences among the statutory requirements for protecting resources—such as endangered and threatened species, water, air, diverse plant and animal communities, and wilderness—have also sometimes been difficult to reconcile.


However, on the basis of our work to date, we believe that statutory changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Forest Service’s decision-making process cannot be identified until agreement is first reached on which uses the agency is to emphasize under its broad multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate and how it is to resolve conflicts or make choices among competing uses on its lands. Disagreement over which uses should receive priority, both inside and outside the agency, has also inhibited the Forest Service in establishing the goals and performance measures needed to ensure its accountability.

Accountability, Reviews and So On: Where Does the Forest Service Fit With Other Federal Agencies

by

I’m getting a few posts together on a history of the Forest Service and various forms of “accountability”; also thoughts about “why the FS is not as adaptive as it could be” brought up by Chelsea.

In the meantime, I thought it would be thought-provoking to expand our view to “how other government agencies are held accountable”. Now there’s all kinds of accountability as we will see, but here I’m interested in accountability for “getting things wrong, with ultimately bad results for people in our country.”

When the Forest Service made a mistake, they did a stand-down on the practice for 90 days and involved a variety of inside and outside people in looking at what went wrong, and making recommendations for improvement. Which I think we will see in the next week or so.

OK, well maybe the CIA does this when their assessments turn out to be wrong, and we (obviously) wouldn’t know about it.  Let’s start with the Federal Reserve. According to its website,

The Federal Reserve, like many other central banks, is an independent government agency but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress.

I ran across this podcast of journalist Bari Weiss with Larry Summers (who has had a very distinguished career doing many things, including being the President of Harvard and Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, but is an expert on economics). The question was “he was more concerned about inflation than others, why does he think he got it right and others got it wrong?” This is right at the beginning of the podcast.  One thing I like about economists is that they tend to be humble about what they know, as daily, annually, or whatever, there is empirical evidence that they are right or wrong.  They also appreciate uncertainties, and have developed ways to think about them.

Here is Summers says.. paraphrased by me.

It’s tempting to blame this (thinking that there won’t be inflation) on politics, but he doesn’t see political motivations among business forecasters. Emphasis on short memories; 40 years since we’d gone through this- many folks had no lived experience of inflation.  Bad statistical modelling.  Motivated belief, people wanted to avoid mistakes of the slow recovery, wanted to believe that they could engage in expansionary policies, the Fed knows best.. reluctant to challenge the views of the Fed. Tendency among pundits and economists to want to make new mistakes.  Everyone who did “widowmaker” trades worried about inflation in the past, didn’t want to make that mistake. All of those contributed to a communal belief system; Keynes said “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”

Bari asked: why does the Admin ask you for advice, if you are critical of their policies?

Summers points out that except for the Trump Admin, he has advised both D and R Admins.  One reason he says is that he never questioned motives; never impugned integrity, focus on what the ideas are. Don’t feel we should take positions of moral superiority except in extreme circumstances.

It’s easier for people to hear you if you respect their sincerity.

Anyway, I’m not a big podcast person, but I think this might be interesting to TSW-ites, especially around the topics of expertise and accountability.

So, the Federal Reserve; perhaps CDC, what did they get wrong and right about Covid?  Should they have a 90 day review? I wouldn’t think they need to involve me (the public) but perhaps include experts who suggested different approaches than the ones they took?

What makes an agency get something wrong enough to generate a stand-down and a review?  How do we tell? Perhaps it should become more common.

Should citizens be able to nominate apparent mistakes for formal review? How can we do this without devolving into a Partisan Rock-Throwing and Defensive Drama where we can predict the dialogue in advance? Somehow the FS appears to have  managed to avoid this, so it can be done. What is their “secret sauce” (a Summers-ism)?

Do Fire-Killed Trees Fall in the Forest?

by

Well, of course. I was thinking about our discussions of post-fire hazard tree cutting as I was looking at the maps and photos of the Cedar Creek Fire in the central Oregon Cascades, which blew up on Friday and over the weekend to 18K acres. It ran north along the west side of Waldo Lake, a vert popular recreation area. North of the lake is the area burned by the 1996 Charlton Fire, which burned 10,000 acres on the north shore, mostly in the Waldo Lake Wilderness (the Pacific Crest Trail runs though it). The Cedar Creek Fire burned well into the older fire scar. This image from Google Earth Pro — 2016 imagery — shows a portion of the newly re-burned area in the wilderness, near a small lake. The image is interesting because it shows how little timber has returned — no restoration was done, since it’s a wilderness area. It also shows many downed trees (as well as the shadows of those still standing). Many of those downed trees probably stood for years, but of course over time they weakened and fell. This scene is typical of the Charlton Fire burn area. Dead trees do fall, which is one reason to cut them before they fall onto roads, power lines, and so on.

Counteracting wildfire misinformation

by

“Counteracting wildfire misinformation,” a paper by 13 authors in Frontiers in Ecology and Environment (open access), is worth a look. The authors do not mention Chad Hanson by name, but this seems to fit, IMHO: “Some scientists use their credentials to advocate for specific policy outcomes that they support personally, which may or may not be driven by robust frameworks of evidence.”

One of the supporting documents is an excellent resource: WebTable 1. “Prebunking prominent examples of wildfire misinformation related to in western North American forests.” For example:

Misinformation: Fuels reduction is a Trojan horse for commercial logging.

Description: Pre-fire fuels reduction is motivated by timber outputs, not fire hazard reduction; the result is serious harm to the land from practices similar to commodity-driven logging.

Consequence of misinformation: Distrust in land management agencies. [As well as collaborative groups and other stakeholders who support fuels reduction.]

Information from more robust knowledge frameworks: Mechanical fuels reduction focuses on retaining medium and large-sized fire-tolerant trees, to foster their survival of the next fire. Fuels reduction treatments restructure and remove woody material and fuel ladders that built up during fire exclusion, and are often of limited economic value. In other cases, removal of medium-, or large-sized fire-intolerant trees that recruited during fire exclusion is essential to improve fire-tolerant tree survival. The catchphrase “fuels reduction logging” deceptively conflates two very different types of forest management.

Key evidence: Agee and Skinner 2005; Schwilk et al. 2009; Stephens et al. 2009, 2020, 2021; Collins et al. 2014; Prichard et al. 2021; Hessburg et al. 2022.