Some Thoughts on Questions for the Prescribed Fire Review: Re Research and Models

by

The release of the Forest Service report on prescribed fire appears to be on the horizon. On September 2, Source New Mexico reported that the review is in the latter stages;  somewhere else I read that the Chief is reviewing the report. According to the news story:

Questions the Forest Service review hopes to answer, according to Chief Moore:

  • Does our prescribed fire program incorporate the most current research on climate change?
  • Do we use our climate models to add to the expertise of decision-makers on the ground?
  • What in our burn plans might need to change?
  • Do we have access to accurate weather forecasts?
  • Do we have enough personnel for the scale of prescribed fire needed to match the scale of wildfire risk across the landscape?
  • Do our existing policies and authorities affect our ability to make sound decisions on the ground?

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

It won’t surprise any TSW readers that  I would have added some questions about research and models…

(1) To what extent have decision-makers on the ground, and fire behavior analysts, specifically, been involved in developing and ground-truthing models that incorporate climate change?

(2) Is the institutional forum for linking modelling improvements and research requested by fire practitioners and that developed by universities and government research entities? Or are those entities simply funding “research that sounds useful to the fire community” without their direct involvement?

(3) Is JFSP the only program specifically targeting practitioner needs? How well are they doing at this, and are any improvements needed? Do they need more funding? How could it be taken from the “sounds plausible” research panels and redirected to research prioritized by fire managers and practitioners?

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

I know the Chief is quite knowledgeable about all this, and how it works, from his many years interacting with FS and other researchers.

But the first two questions seem to assume that existing research is 1) relevant and 2) correct for that problem/area, and it’s only a  question of managers adopting it, what I call the “briefcase left under the bridge” view of research links to management. “Pick it up and use it, whether you think it’s useful or not, because someone you don’t know and have never spoken with determined that you need it.”  Soon to be followed by accusations of “not using the science” if it is determined not to be relevant or correct. Which of course brings up issues of power and privilege between the studiers and the doers.  And of course there are researchers that work closely with practitioners to produce research.  But now that wildfire is a cool subject to study in the eyes of the world, various disciplinary crows are circling the funding carcass and not all of them know how to, or will, involve the practitioner community.

I think research should be considered relevant if, and only if,  fire practitioners have asked for it, and given input into how and where it’s designed, carried out and interpreted.

I think research should be considered correct if, and only if, it has been ground-truthed by fire practitioners.

These two are not hard targets to achieve. It only appears difficult, in my view, because our research institutions are not (for the most part) currently set up with these goals in mind.  So here’s an idea..

Any study that states that it has utility for practitioner communities should be reviewed by representatives of those communities.  That information would be available via a link to each journal article.  Or better yet, put practitioners on review committees for funding proposals.  We tried that when I worked at CSREES, now NIFA, and it resulted in a very different landscape of approaches and designs.

 

Labor Day.. Climate Change Causes Invasives? and Research on Getting People Not to Move Firewood

by

You might have read this report from UPIs Science News that interestingly attributes tree problems from invasive insects and disease to… climate change.

The researchers point to climate change for the rise in threatened trees saying trees stressed by drought, wildfire, pollution, floods or other extreme conditions open the door for invasive insects or fungi.

Not surprisingly, though, many scientists feel that more invasives are actually caused by lack of appropriate regulation of international trade.

Important measures have been taken to prevent PIP introductions, and while vital, these efforts are insufficient. For perspective, the number of containers (20-foot equivalent units) entering the U.S. annually through 63 ports increased from just over 11 million in 2000 to well over 22 million in 2017 (Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration). Approximately 75% of containers used in maritime trade include wood packaging, a well-known source of invaders (Meissner et al., 2009). The opportunity for biological invasions is constant and the threat overwhelming, even at our most regulated ports

One direct approach is to “not move firewood”. Many thanks to Faith Campbell for this timely post! Excerpt below, entire post can be found here.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Clemson University have analyzed how to persuade people not to move firewood – and the tree pests that can accompany it. (Full citation at the end of this blog) Their study is based on five surveys conducted by TNC between 2005 and 2016. These surveys guided TNC’s “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign and its outreach efforts since the beginning in 2008

As Solano et al. note, wood-boring pests continue to enter the country and spread, causing immense damage. Firewood transport by campers is a significant contributor to that spread. Millions of individuals decide whether to move firewood. Yet the scientific literature is quite limited regarding their behavior and TNC’s survey data has never been published.

The patchwork of state and federal quarantines is largely reactive and has failed to prevent continuing spread. The regulatory regime has been further fragmented by APHIS’ deregulation of the emerald ash borer.  As a consequence, limiting the spread of pests depends even more on educating campers to behave responsibly – voluntarily.

The TNC’s surveys each focused on different geographic areas and asked different questions in each. So their compilation cannot show trends in awareness or other measures. Nevertheless, the authors find:

  • Most people in the United States don’t know firewood can harbor invasive forest insects and diseases, but when targeted by effective education they can learn and are likely to change their behavior.

  • The two best ways to reach the public is through emails confirming campsite reservations and flyers handed out at parks. Web-based information seemed less effective. However, most of the surveys were done before 2011, the year when 50% of adults reported using internet media.

  • Forestry-related public agencies (especially state forestry departments) are the most trusted sources of information about forest health issues.

  • It works better to “push” information, not expect people to seek it on their own.

  • Messages should focus on encouraging the public to make better choices, including how they, themselves, will benefit. Positive, empowering calls to action, like “Buy it Where You Burn It” or “Buy Local, Burn Local” are better than negative messages, such as “Don’t Move Firewood”.

  • People respond to messages that emphasize protecting forest resources, e.g., ecosystem services like clean water. They response less to messages about forest threats.

Hungerford Lake Recreation Area at Equestrian Campground. Original public domain image from Flickr

Solano et al. describe the ways that different socioeconomic groups differ in their awareness of forest pests and in how they respond to various statements about forests, pests, and messengers. The focus is on how to overcome four psychological barriers to changing behavior that had been identified in a study of climate change. In the firewood context, those barriers were: 1) lack of awareness; 2) mistrust and negative reactions to the messengers; 3) habit; and 4) social comparison, norms, conformity, and perceived poor quality of purchased firewood.

From this work, the authors suggested further work::

  • Development of education and outreach programs that target those with lower education levels, since, on average, ~60% of people who camp did not graduate from college. Further research is probably needed to identify the most effective messengers and messages.

  • While 80% of the survey respondents were over 40, the proportion of campers made up of Gen X and millennials is increasing. Managers need to improve outreach for younger audiences. This includes engaging the messengers they trust: scientists, environmentalist politicians, peer networks, and social media.

  • While women trust the USDA Forest Service and conservation organizations, 55% of campers in a given year are men. Further research is needed to clarify the most effective messengers and messages for men. The outreach agencies should select the messengers that both sexes trust.

  • Levels of awareness should be assessed both before and after implementing new educational strategies so that the strategies’ effectiveness can be determined.

The Need for Alignment: Internal to Agencies, Among Governments, and Within Administrations

by
Diablo Canyon, California’s last operational nuclear plant, is due to be shut down in 2024.
PHOTO: GEORGE ROSE/GETTY IMAGES
This was the original photo that went with Ted’s op-ed in February. apparently the State decided to keep it open for five more years.

I’ve been thinking about alignment lately.  I’ll tell you three stories, then point you to an op-ed, and ask you for examples where you think alignment needs to be fostered, as well as ways to create alignment. I know some “old Forest Service” types that could produce alignment, perhaps that was a different cultural moment, or they had skills that could still be useful?

(1) First, when I was trying to get input from Forest Service research silviculturists for our MOG letter, I was told (as were others) that they weren’t allowed to talk about it.  So I asked Jamie Barbour and he said that wasn’t the case.  All the National Forest System silviculture folks returned my calls and emails, and answered my questions.  The Forest Service didn’t know there was a problem with alignment until someone from outside told them. How else would they know?  I’m expecting by the next round of comments on MOG, this will be cleared up.

Intra-organizational alignment.  In a large organization, tough to achieve and keep going.

(2) Second, I have a friend in a mountainous subdivision of Denver, who is working wholeheartedly on wildfire mitigation.  I could give many examples, but here’s one.  She’s trying to get infrared cameras placed on mountaintops.. but some telecom group wanted to charge $30K or so a month to put it there.  Other telecom companies would do it as a public service, but perhaps not in the best locations. If it were really important to do whatever to stop fires in communities.. people would be looking at this.  Maybe there are but we don’t know.  So many moving parts, so many responsibilities so much unclear.

Alignment among levels of different government and other authorities.. perhaps the most difficult kind of alignment to achieve.  Often it’s not really clear who is in charge of what, and it’s not clear that anyone is looking at the big picture. And at the same time, looking at the mis-alignments at the local level where the proverbial fire hits the stucco.  I hope that the Wildfire Commission might help with multi-level alignment, but I wonder whether they will solicit input on “why it’s hard to get mitigation done” from all the relevant people and institutions at the local levels.

(3) Third is the obvious challenge of “more energy infrastructure ASAP” versus current permitting procedures.  Some groups seem to feel like the current situation cannot be changed in any way or “the nations fundamental environmental laws will be undermined.” Some groups were pushing President Biden to declare a “climate emergency”.   It seems logical, perhaps, then that emergency CEQ and agency NEPA provisions could be invoked for a very wide range of mitigation and adaptation projects- including ones that would be off-limits if the groups promoting “no cutting of 80 year old trees” win out.  It seems like a major misalignment to me. Because nowadays everything can be linked in some way to climate change mitigation or adaptation.

But back to the renewable build out vs. permitting procedures as sacred text as described by Ted Nordhaus of The Breakthrough Institute in this Wall Street Journal op-ed.

In Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, local environmentalists and devotees of the Burning Man festival are using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to oppose a geothermal energy plant. Further south, the Sierra Club has joined with all-terrain vehicle enthusiasts to stop development of what would be the nation’s largest solar farm, which it says threatens endangered tortoises. Along the Atlantic seaboard, plans for major offshore wind farms have been hogtied by provisions of the Jones Act, an obscure law that requires maritime cargo to be transported exclusively by U.S.-flagged ships when it is shipped between domestic ports. It is an obstacle that may ultimately prove beside the point because proposals to develop wind energy in American coastal regions have also faced a constant barrage of NEPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) lawsuits designed to stop them.

The problem isn’t limited to renewable energy. In California, environmentalists have used a state law designed to protect fish eggs as a pretext to close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, the state’s largest source of clean energy, while the California Environmental Quality Act has hobbled efforts to build both high-speed rail and high-voltage transmission lines that the state is counting on to meet its climate commitments. In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission peremptorily rejected last month the application of the first advanced nuclear reactor developer to seek a license before the commission, to cheers from leading environmental groups.

Across the country, foundational laws established in the 1960s and 70s to protect the environment are today a major obstacle to efforts to build the infrastructure and energy systems that we need to safeguard public health and save the climate. Though the Biden administration and Democrats currently propose to spend close to a trillion dollars on low-carbon infrastructure and technology, there is little reason to believe the U.S. is capable of building any of it in a timely or cost-effective way.

I particularly liked the ATVs and Sierra Club aligned.  And doesn’t it make you wonder where all the money will actually go? Check the whole op-ed out, I don’t think it’s paywalled.

Will there be environmental costs to clearing away the detritus of decades of environmental regulatory policies? Without question. Some ill-conceived projects will get the green light, and those projects may have a negative impact on local environments. But we have a range of other legal tools to protect our most valuable environmental resources, from federal authority to protect public lands to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

The U.S. can no longer continue to neglect its compounding infrastructure and clean-energy needs. We aren’t going to regulate our way to a thriving low-carbon economy and a more stable climate. America needs to get back to building again.

I was reminded of Sally Fairfax’s article in 1978

  • Sally K. Fairfax, “A Disaster in the Environmental Movement,” 199 Science743 (17 Feb.1978)
Unfortunately I can’t get through the paywalls ($30 to Science and it’s not available to free users of JStor) to clip out pieces of the paper, but as I recall, her argument was that NEPA focused environmental groups on procedural rather than substantive statutes.  Nevertheless, I would say to Nordhaus that ESA is a procedural statute like CWA and CAA. Maybe there’s a legal reason those are less often used.

What Is [a Poached] Old-Growth Tree Actually Worth?

by

The subtitle of this Undark article is “In setting fines for timber poaching, experts are looking at different ways to calculate the financial value of trees.” It’s by Lyndsie Bourgon, author of Tree Thieves: Crime and Survival in North America’s Woods.

Excerpts:

At last estimate, the Forest Service reported that 1 in 10 trees logged on their land is poached. The financial impact can be hard to pin down, but some sources estimate poaching amounts to up to $100 million per year, contributing to a broader $1 billion annual valuation of all timber poaching in the United States.

…

In British Columbia, natural resource officers who patrol provincial forest lands have started to argue for steeper penalties that take ecological value, wildlife corridors, recreational use, and aesthetic beauty into consideration. It’s in those issues that the gravity of poaching is most felt, one officer told me, not simply the loss of a marketable resource.

Across the border, in Washington, similar arguments have been made in large timber poaching cases. In a 2012 case of tree theft, a man pled guilty to poaching bigleaf maple, Western red cedar trees, and Douglas fir, at least one of which was 300 years old, from Olympic National Forest. The market value of the wood was estimated to be between $59,510 and $118,660. But when it came time for sentencing and restitution, federal attorneys argued that the ecological value of timber should also contribute to the overall fine.

The prosecution used something called an “ecological valuation” — a method factors in considerations like the tree’s value as habitat for endangered birds, as well as a single old-growth’s influence on forest health. “Because the Forest Service is charged with stewarding the forests for the public benefit (and not simply with marketing timber), consideration of ecological factors is necessary,” the restitution memo said. Notably, it also stated: “Courts have recognized that a restitution order should reflect the value of stolen property from the victim’s perspective. Market value does not adequately reflect this value.”

Mature and Old Growth (MOG), Moggies, and the Western Governors’ Letter

by

 

Moggies are cute and furry creatures. MOG is a political bone (:)) thrown to certain ENGOs, making unnecessary work for the rest of us. Hiss!

The Mature and Old Growth (MOG) comment period requested by USDA and BLM recently closed.  The Retiree Gossip Network says there is pressure from entities in the White House to USDA to hurry up with this effort, despite the need for consultation with Tribes and States, and public comment.  The Western Govs, though, don’t seem to be in the same place,  at least not in writing. It is not lost on them that more restrictions could easily be in conflict with other USG priorities like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the IRA.

Here’s what the Western Governors think..(my bold)

Western Governors are encouraged that the EO requires the Departments to consult with states as they work to establish a definition framework and use the framework to create an inventory of old-growth and mature forests. Early, meaningful, substantive and ongoing consultation is an integral component of any durable and effective land management strategy. This consultation will also facilitate the incorporation of state expertise, data and documentation into federal decision-making processes and land management activities.

WGA Policy Resolution 2021-03 articulates Governors’ support for increasing the pace and scale of restoration activities on western forests and rangelands, mitigating the potential effects of uncharacteristic wildfire, and supporting fire-adapted communities in the West. The resolution also highlights how a narrow focus on specific land management goals, such as carbon sequestration through old-growth forest conservation, can conflict with a more holistic management paradigm that seeks to satisfy a broader range of ecological and societal values. As the Departments implement Section 2 of the EO, Western Governors encourage you to comprehensively consider the various goals and values reflected in the Order.

Western Governors also engage on wildfire and land management policy through WGA Policy Resolution 2023-01, Working Lands, Working Communities. The resolution emphasizes Governors’ support for the integration of land management, fire management, and water protection functions within and between federal agencies, states and territories, and local communities. The resolution also underscores the need for sufficient infrastructure, access, and workforce necessary for communities to support forest and rangeland management activities.

A Judicial Threat to Conservation

by

This essay from the PERC website is interesting. Emphasis added….

A Judicial Threat to Conservation

The recent nullification of environmental regulations by a federal court sets a dangerous precedent.

How aggressive should courts be in reversing environmental regulations?

That question has renewed significance in the wake of this summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision using a controversial theory to declare unlawful the Obama Administration’s signature climate regulation, the Clean Power Plan. If you are concerned about the Supreme Court’s decision, you should also be worried about a little-noticed development in the lower courts that poses significant short-term and long-term threats to conservation.

Last month, a federal district court in California voided three Endangered Species Act regulations issued by the Trump Administration. Although environmental advocates typically celebrate decisions against former President Donald J. Trump as a win for conservation, in this case that would be a mistake. The implications of the district court’s decision are alarming.

One ominous concern is the basis of the court’s decision. The court did not consider the details of these regulations nor determine that they were unlawful. Instead, the court asserted it has wide discretion to void regulations issued under a former president whenever a new administration with different priorities has expressed interest in revisiting them. This decision, and recent decisions like it, set a dangerous precedent.

The court’s slash-and-burn approach to nullifying federal regulations directly harms wildlife. The three voided regulations covered a lot of ground. When the rules were issued, the Environmental Policy Innovation Center, an organization committed to environmental conservation, reported that the rules contained 33 discrete changes, more of which could benefit conservation than would undermine it. Yet the court erased all these changes, including the beneficial ones, with little or no explanation.

Read the full article from The Regulatory Review.

Reporter Questions on Emergencies and Litigation and the Sequoia Emergency Response Approved

by
Figure 5: Indian Basin Grove ladder fuels in 2022 which reach into the crowns of the sequoias. Many of the dead trees
have already fallen and are adding to the surface fuels that can burn at high intensity and kill the sequoia roots. This is
another example of a Giant Sequoia Grove with no recent fire history. Indian Basin Grove is proposed for emergency fuels treatment.

 

A journalist contacted me and asked about the Region 5 Sequoia Emergency Response letter. This emergency uses 36 CFR 220.4.

(b) Emergency responses. When the responsible official determines that an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take urgently needed actions before preparing a NEPA analysis and any required documentation in accordance with the provisions in §§ 220.5, 220.6, and 220.7 of this part, then the following provisions apply.

(1) The responsible official may take actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency and are urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural or cultural resources. When taking such actions, the responsible official shall take into account the probable environmental consequences of the emergency action and mitigate foreseeable adverse environmental effects to the extent practical.

(2) If the responsible official proposes emergency actions other than those actions described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and such actions are not likely to have significant environmental impacts, the responsible official shall document that determination in an EA and FONSI prepared in accord with these regulations. If the responsible official finds that the nature and scope of proposed emergency actions are such that they must be undertaken prior to preparing any NEPA analysis and documentation associated with a CE or an EA and FONSI, the responsible official shall consult with the Washington Office about alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance. The Chief or Associate Chief of the Forest Service may grant emergency alternative arrangements under NEPA for environmental assessments, findings of no significant impact and categorical exclusions (FSM 1950.41a). Consultation with the Washington Office shall be coordinated through the appropriate regional office.

(3) If the responsible official proposes emergency actions other than those actions described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and such actions are likely to have significant environmental impacts, then the responsible official shall consult with CEQ, through the appropriate regional office and the Washington Office, about alternative arrangements in accordance with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.11 as soon as possible.

 

Here’s a link to a CEQ guidance letter from 2020.  I guess I never really got in my head the “immediate threats to valuable natural or cultural resources” angle in addition to “public health or safety”. Seems like Sequoias certainly fill the bill.

Specifically the reporter asked:

1) is there a way to find/track ongoing litigation and results on each forest?

2) Is there anyone who knows the ins and outs of using this legal framework (knowledgeable party without direct interests)

My questions are:

4) (I asked this in the Hazard Tree post, but we can discuss here) how often has this Chief’s authority been used and for what kind of projects?

5) can the use of these different Emergency Responses (Chief or CEQ)  be litigated? If so, what is the history on that?

Anyway, here are links to the Sequoia Emergency Response approval letter.. DECISION MEMORANDUM_FOR THE CHIEF_R5_EmergencyResponse_GiantSequoia and below are the recommendations. Photos and more explanation and specifics in this  Enclosure_GiantSequoia_EmergencyResponse_withAppendices_July2022 (1)

 

Approve the proposed emergency response for NEPA compliance under 36 CFR 220.4(b)(2) with associated conditions so that the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests can immediately
implement fuels reduction treatments within 12 Giant Sequoia groves.

Proposed Emergency Response:
1. Grant authorization to begin the fuels reduction treatments on approximately 13,377 acres (displayed in attached maps) prior to completion of the documentation of the Categorical
Exclusions (four) and Environmental Assessments and FONSIs (three).

2. For the four Categorical Exclusions, exclude the requirement at 36 CFR 220.6(e) to document a decision to proceed with an action in a decision memo for certain Categorical Exclusions.

3. For the three Environmental Assessments and FONSIs, exclude the requirement at 36 CFR 220.7(c) to document a decision to proceed with an action in a Decision Notice if an EA and FONSI have been prepared.

Associated Conditions:
4. Ensure compliance with other laws, such as Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act are in place before implementation of the fuels treatments.
5. Ensure all required consultations and permitting have been completed before implementation of the emergency fuels treatments. Emergency provisions may be employed where necessary, such as emergency consultation under ESA.
6. Stakeholders will be notified of the approved emergency response.
7. For those projects which have not initiated public or tribal involvement, initiate public scoping and tribal engagement within 45 days of approved emergency response actions. Continue engagement with the Giant Sequoia Working Group and Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition.
8. Monitor the effects of the actions subject to emergency response. Reconsult with my office through the Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination if monitoring reveals effects outside of those disclosed in the ongoing environmental analysis.
9. The intent is to complete the Emergency Response for Emergency Fuels Treatments by the end of 2023, however emergency fuels treatments may occur through 2024. The Pacific Southwest Region will provide regular implementation progress updates. An annual review will be conducted to re-evaluate the need for the emergency response.
10. All other proposed actions in the EAs and CEs which are not part of this

Region 5 is Granted Emergency Response for NEPA Compliance on Small Portion of Post-Fire Hazard Trees

by
Example of one map in the Emergency Response letter.

Thanks to a TSW reader for links to this July 2022 letter.  It’s located on the project website in the emergency response folder.  It appears to take the least controversial parts of the multi-forest zone level EAs and ask for an emergency response.  It appears to have been signed by the Chief on July 12.  What I think is interesting about it is in the context of the larger discussion about NEPA for permitting, with regard to the future permitting deal associated with the IRA bill.  Is inter-agency coordination slowing the EA down, or just regular “project planning” staffing, or other difficulties?. Also,  I think there was a discussion about the proposed Save the Sequoias act, in which I think I remember someone suggested the FS already had these authorities, and so there might not be a need for changes found in that proposed legislation.

I wonder how often that the Chief approved “emergency response/alternative arrangements” have been used in practice, and to what extent they are used consistently for the same kinds of emergencies? I’m supposing this needs to be run by the Department and CEQ as well in practice but I don’t know for sure (nor whether this is consistent across administrations). What do you all know about these questions?

From the letter to the Chief (decision memorandum document):

BACKGROUND: Under Forest Service NEPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR 220.4(b)(2), the Chief or Associate Chief may grant emergency response or alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance when the responsible official finds that the nature and scope of proposed emergency actions are such that they must be undertaken prior to preparing any NEPA analysis and documentation associated with a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This is not an alternative arrangement as defined by the Council of Environmental Quality in 40 CFR 1506.12.

California experienced record-setting wildfires in 2020 and 2021 that caused expansive stretches of fire-killed or damaged trees adjacent to roads, trails, and facilities which pose a threat to health, safety, and property. To address these hazards, the “R5 Post-disturbance Hazardous Tree Management Projects” were initiated, which propose the felling and removal of hazardous trees adjacent to roads, trails, and facilities within nine National Forests recently affected by wildfires. The project was initiated in October 2021 with the intent to issue final decisions in May 2022, in time to implement during the 2022 field season. However, project planning and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation is taking longer than anticipated. This along with the continued commitment to ensure adequate time for public involvement and accommodate the pre-decisional administrative review process have pushed anticipated decisions back to at least November 2022. Without an emergency response, most, if not all the emergency hazard tree abatement would be delayed until 2023. Trees will continue to deteriorate and fall, posing a serious risk of property damage, injury, or death as more time passes..

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed emergency response for NEPA compliance under 36 CFR 220.4(b)(2) with associated conditions so that the Forests identified in the supporting documentation can immediately address the hazards to human health and safety in the highest priority portions of the project areas.
Proposed Emergency Response:
1. Grant authorization to begin the emergency hazard tree abatement on approximately 167 road miles and 18 developed recreation sites (displayed in attached maps) prior to completion of the Environmental Assessments and FONSIs, and exclude the requirement at 36 CFR 220.7(c) to document a decision to proceed with an action in a Decision Notice if an EA and FONSI have been prepared.
Associated Conditions:2. Ensure compliance with other laws, such as Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act are in place before implementation of the emergency hazard tree abatement.
3. Ensure all required consultations and permitting are in place before implementation of the emergency hazard tree abatement. Emergency provisions may be employed where necessary, such as emergency consultation under ESA.
4. Implementation of emergency hazard tree abatement will address human health and safety and will be limited to treating imminent hazards (> 80 percent probability of mortality) and within 1 tree height striking distance of the specified roads and developed recreation sites prior to completion of the Environmental Assessments and FONSIs. Hazard trees would be identified in accordance with the Hazard Tree Identification and Mitigation Guidelines for Forest Service in the Pacific Southwest Region. The area assessed for hazard tree abatement would be within 300 feet of the centerline of roads (a 600-foot corridor), and around facilities and infrastructure.
5. Monitor the effects of the actions subject to this emergency response. Reconsult with my office through the Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination if monitoring reveals effects outside of those disclosed in the ongoing environmental analysis.
6. The Emergency Response for Emergency Hazard Tree Abatement is limited to the 2022 field season.
7. All other proposed actions in the EAs which are not part of this emergency response will follow the normal 36 CFR 220 and 36 CFR 218 process.

They also scoped the potential for using emergency authorities..

Both the scoping letter and comment period notice disclosed the possibility of utilizing emergency authorities to expedite hazard tree abatement on all or a portion of the project areas. There was some support for using emergency authorities, while others did not support this approach or suggested it be limited to addressing only imminent hazards.
In general, most of the public and tribes support hazard tree felling and removal near county roads, NFS Maintenance Level 3, 4, 5 roads, and developed recreation sites. While there is concern about the need for hazard tree removal near lower use ML 2 roads, there is general support for the ML 2 roads which access developed recreation sites, communities, or otherwise have more regular or moderate use. The emergency hazard tree abatement subject to the emergency response are focused on the imminent hazards in these higher priority areas where there is mostly general support.

And the problem with ESA consultation appears to be workload, and of course between USFWS and NMFS, the slowest would control the speed of the project.

In compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), we have begun consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Consultation for the Central Sierra and Southern Sierra zones is anticipated to be completed in June 2022, though delays are possible due to USFWS and NMFS workload. Consultation for the North Zone is anticipated to be completed in August 2022. Emergency consultation will be employed to ensure compliance with ESA specific to the emergency actions if necessary.

Getting into the Weeds Perhaps on “Line Officers Have Less Discretion Than They Used To”

by

Following up on Al Sample’s previous post, the conversation  led more generally about the idea that Forest Service line officers tend to seek more discretion via not wanting to be tied down by specifics in plans.  Or perhaps the concept is really “managerial flexibility.” It’s hard for me to hold in my mind three things at once.. “the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate” “we must use the latest science” and  “what we think today should be requirements in forest plans that last 30 years or go through a tedious amendment process. ”

I think everyone in an organization seeks more discretion, in general.  But maybe not?  I certainly wouldn’t have turned it down.  I guess the question is whether people can be trusted with discretion, and how are they held accountable (for what? and by whom?)

I was intrigued by Chelsea’s statement in this comment.

“My research on the Forest Service has indicated that line officers feel they have less discretion/autonomy than they used to.”

I’d like to hear from Chelsea but also from current employees and retirees.

First let’s establish a timeframe- less that when, for example, than 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago?  Some of us remember 50 years or so ago, but are becoming fewer.  So we perhaps all remember different pasts.

And less discretion about what?

Budgets, hiring people, making decisions about the landscape?  A person could argue that communications and the need for alignment has driven some of this (a natural force).  On the other hand, centralization of business operations removed a large part of discretion (an unnatural force).  A Regional Forester shouldn’t have to beg an unknown person at ASC to get employees (in one notable case, a Forest Supervisor, paid).

I must point out that many, many folks (including me) who were not line officers but also hire people and try to get them paid were equally frustrated.  Having never been a line officer, but observing them, it appeared to me that their decision space is constrained by law, regulation and policy, plus concerns of unnecessarily ticking off people, be that their own staff, RO staffs, and their own supervisors.  Good line officers have sensitivities to this, and check with higher levels prior to controversial decisions to make sure that their supervisors have their backs. But my experience may not be typical; by the time a project reached WO- NEPA or even the R-2 planning shop, a project had “escaped containment.”  I’m interested in others’ experiences.

So I would like to hear from folks in more detail about this.  I’d also like to know, for folks who have worked on the BLM as well as the Forest Service side, how the two agencies compare in terms of line officer discretion.

John OIiver on trees as carbon offsets

by

Here is John Oliver’s pop take on trees as carbon offsets.  (23 minutes.) He basically says that they essentially useless for mitigating climate change because they rarely protect forests from any human threats, and certainly do not provide protection commensurate with the carbon they allow to be released (so they may do more harm than good).  Rebuttal?

He also mentions that we could lose trees directly as a result of climate change, independent of any forest management (or lack of).  Climate change is the #2 reason for loss of forests according to this research on at-risk tree species:

https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp3.10305

Here is an overview of the risks and an example of one species.

Here is an example of one forest.