Public lands endangered species news

by
50TH! anniversary in 2023

 

Links provide additional information.

COURT CASES

On April 15, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court and upheld the designation of critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, which is found in dense riparian vegetation in the southwest.  Plaintiffs were federal grazing permittees.  The court was largely deferential to the Service’s consideration of economic impacts and the benefits of excluding some areas that it had decided to include.  (The opinion in Northern New Mexico Stockman’s Association v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is here.)

On April 19, the Center for Biological Diversity moved to intervene as a defendant in a case filed in the District of Columbia district court on December 13, 2021 by the New Mexico Cattlegrowers’ Association against the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for denying their petition to delist the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher.  The species is found in riparian forests in the southwest, and has been the subject of litigation against cattle grazing on public lands.  Plaintiffs allege that the bird is not a valid subspecies that is eligible for listing.

On April 21, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the district court of Arizona for delaying a determination of whether to list the Suckley’s cuckoo bumblebee as threatened or endangered.  These parasitic pollinators were once common in prairies, meadows and grasslands across the western United States and Canada.  Suckley’s cuckoo bumblebees are threatened by declines in their host species, habitat degradation, overgrazing, pesticide use and climate change.  The survival of Suckley’s cuckoo bumblebees is dependent on the welfare of their primary host, western bumblebees, who have declined by 93%. The Center is also working to obtain Endangered Species Act protection for western bumblebees.

In response to three lawsuits brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to dates for decisions on whether 18 plants and animals from across the country warrant protection as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Service will also consider identifying and protecting critical habitat for another nine species.  The species include the wide-ranging monarch butterfly and tri-colored bat, and two salamanders found on the Sequoia National Forest.

Another species is the eastern gopher tortoise, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will determine by Sept. 30 whether gopher tortoises in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and eastern Alabama should be listed.  Gopher tortoises are already listed as threatened in Louisiana, Mississippi and western Alabama.  “The tortoises need large, unfragmented, long-leaf pine forests to survive,” the center said Tuesday in an announcement about the settlement. This lawsuit, which was filed last year in federal court in Washington, D.C., said the Fish and Wildlife Service found in 2011 that gopher tortoises merited listing because of threats “including habitat fragmentation and loss from agricultural and silvicultural practices inhospitable to the tortoise, urbanization, and the spread of invasive species.”  However, they were not given a high priority for listing by the agency.  (This article discusses the gopher tortoise.)

WildEarth Guardians and Wilderness Workshop have settled their lawsuit against the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for designating insufficient critical habitat for Canada lynx (leaving out parts of Montana) in 2014.  The reconsideration of critical habitat will occur by the end of 2024.  This comes after the Biden administration reversed a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to propose delisting the lynx in 2017 during the Trump administration. (Following that, another group of conservation organizations reached an agreement with the agency in November 2021 to write a draft recovery plan for lynx by the end of 2023.)

LISTING ACTIONS

On March 2, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed designating two freshwater mussel species as threatened, and also proposed critical habitat.  The western fanshell is found on the Mark Twain and Ouachita national forests, and the Ouachita fanshell on the Ouachita.

Following litigation, on March 23, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service reversed its position and proposed to up-list the currently threatened northern long-eared bat to endangered status, primarily as a result of continued losses to the white nose syndrome disease.  The important change that will result is the removal of exceptions to incidental take requirements that are available for threatened species but not for those classified as endangered.  This will mean more involved consultation procedures for any actions that remove trees in the 38 eastern states in which the species is found.

On April 13, The Center for Biological Diversity and two other conservation organizations notified the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of their intent to sue for delaying a determination of whether the thick-leaf bladderpod should be listed under the Endangered Species Act.  This follows the failure of the BLM in southeastern Montana to act on its staff recommendations to close an area to mining to protect this species they classify as “sensitive” from potential gypsum mining.  Off-road vehicle use is also a factor.  (This news release has a link to the NOI).

On May 12, the Center for Biological Diversity notified the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its intent to sue for delaying making listing decisions for 11 species.  One of these is the whitebark pine, found at high elevations in seven western states.  Two plants are threatened by cattle grazing in the southwest, and the slickspot peppergrass by grazing in southwest Idaho.  The sickle darter (a fish) is allegedly affected by logging near rivers in Tennessee and Virginia.

Congress agreed to again include in its fiscal year 2022 appropriations bill the rider that prohibits the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act.  This language has been included since 2014, allegedly as the result of oil and gas industry lobbying.  It became law on March 15.

OTHER WILDLIFE NEWS

On April 22, a county judge in Ventura County upheld two local ordinances that designate standards for development and require environmental reviews for projects that may hinder wildlife connectivity.  The ordinances help protect the wildlife corridors that connect the Los Padres National Forest, Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills.  Habitat connectivity is crucial for the survival of mountain lions, gray foxes, California red-legged frogs and other wildlife in the region, and the Forest Service participated in identifying the corridors.

The Shawnee National Forest has temporarily closed Service Road No. 345 to allow safe passage for many species of amphibians and snakes during a critical time of migration.

Oregon Forest Accord Signed: Op-ed in Oregonian

by
The bipartisan Private Forest Accord not only lays out a science-based approach for improving aquatic habitat and protecting clean water, but it also represents a path forward out of gridlock for how forests are managed. Jamie Hale/The OregonianJamie Hale/The Oregonian

Here’s a link to the op-ed written by Governor Kate Brown, Chris Edwards and Bob Van Dyk.

Perhaps we’ve discussed this before? It sounds pretty impressive. We can all wish for a lasting peace on private forest management in Oregon. But this Forest Accord be able to do that? What do Oregonians here at TSW think?

Here’s an excerpt:

The new legislation covers a gamut of actions: increasing no-harvest zones next to streams for shade and water filtration; forest road upgrades that improve fish migration upstream; state-of-the-art computer modeling to protect landslide-prone hillsides; millions of dollars of state and private sector investment for creation of wildlife habitat.

But perhaps most impressive is the process of good faith collaboration and compromise that got us here.

During a time of deep political division, 24 organizations representing two sides with a history of high-stakes conflict set aside their differences and agreed to sit around the table, take a hard look at the latest science, have difficult conversations, and find common ground.

The success we celebrated last week demonstrates how opposing sides can work together on viable solutions to some of the toughest problems facing Oregonians today.

While all Oregonians should take a moment to celebrate – the work is far from over. The rules that implement these changes still require approval by the Board of Forestry and need to be communicated to more than 65,000 forest landowners in every corner of Oregon. This will be followed by years of scientific monitoring and fine tuning on the ground to ensure the changes have the desired outcomes we all set out to accomplish.

The agreement also establishes a framework for future changes to forest practices that keeps the spirit of collaboration alive. This process prioritizes sound science and gives a diverse set of Oregonians a voice in how our forests are managed on a regular basis. This will help to ensure that future generations of Oregonians can continue to enjoy renewable Oregon-grown building products, cold and clean water, wildlife habitat, clean air and the unique recreational opportunities our lush Oregon forests provide.

BLM Unveils New Online Portal for Improved Access; Also How Many Political Appointees Do You Need to Prepare/Approve Leases?

by

The Center for Western Priorities had some interesting stuff today. This looks like a great idea to me, public input to prioritize parcels for improved access.  But the question I always ask is… would this make sense for the FS and BLM to do together in some way, even though the FS does not have the Dingell Act? Perhaps the FS could somehow coast on Interior’s coattails?

 

The Bureau of Land Management unveiled a new online portal where members of the public can nominate parcels of land for improved access. The agency is looking for help identifying parcels where recreational opportunities are high, but access is difficult or impossible. BLM will use this process to create a priority list of parcels that Congress could make accessible.

There are currently 8.3 million acres of public land that remain inaccessible to the public due to inholdings of private land and other barriers. Taking action to open this land to public access is beneficial for hikers, anglers, and hunters. It will allow recreationists to enjoy public land without risking a trespassing lawsuit, which has been highlighted in the ongoing corner-crossing case in Wyoming.

“It is clear the American public is passionate about increasing access to public lands,” BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning said in a statement. “This new technology to gather nominations will help us organize what we anticipate will be an equally robust response in 2022.”

 

And on the below topic.. I disagree with Aaron that one more political appointee will help the process of doing more leasing.  In fact, it seems that given what political appointees actually say (if we assume that doing and saying are related; not always clear for those of a political bent), probably fewer of them are needed (and more career employees).

Interior nominee kept waiting over Manchin energy demands

Environmental groups are increasingly frustrated by delays to confirm Interior nominee Laura Daniel-Davis in the Senate. The stalled nomination is indicative of the larger political battle over fossil fuel development on public lands. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin delayed the confirmation in March while he waited to see how the administration responded to his demands for more fossil fuel production on public lands. Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities said confirming Daniel-Davis would help address lawmaker concerns, and added, “If you want Interior to get moving on this stuff, give Interior the people to do it.”

 

 

An Interesting Voice in the Wildfire Space, the First Street Foundation Wildfire Study and Thoughts on Building Trust

by

I’ve been thinking about trust quite a bit, mostly with regard to prescribed and Wildfire With Benefits. But then the First Street Foundation study came up.  I discovered on Twitter an interesting substack called The Hotshot Wakeup.  The person who runs it has a unique and interesting take on this. Check this podcast out around 21:38, or start sooner if you’re interested in wildfire news. I was unable to find out who this individual is (nor their pronouns) so.. I will call them THW and use they/their pronouns until I find out differently.

THW questions the FSF study and let’s look at some of hizzer concerns.

1. It came to our attention through a focused media push via a great variety of outlets.. blizzardy.  That takes money and influence. So who is behind it and to what end? He mentions bot accounts. As an Old Person, sadly, I don’t understand how that might work.

2. It came through a foundation that has traditionally not been in the fire space. It is interested in “climate risk” and has previously been interested in coastal flooding.

3.  It does not seem to ground-truth well.

4. “THW describes how outlets and other folks have interpreted it. Shouldn’t let people live there until we can take their ignorance away” “too late to have the public learn about these things” I don’t know which stories he read but he mentioned people quoted in California and Montana, but I am curious.

5. THW mentions UN Wildfire Policy which had had covered elsewhere in another podcast but I couldn’t find.- They suggest FSF study kind of pushes the same policy.. shouldn’t live in rural areas, should tax people if they want to live in those areas.

The way the actual information is carried forward seems to be promoting a agenda of.. well, listen to the way he tells it. Then there’s those who think it’s for insurance companies to raise everyone’s rates, and so on.

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

So what could they have done to build trust? I’m not a trust expert, but here are some ideas. You are invited to add yours.

1. Be open about their goals before they start.  You are entering the fire modeling science space, already occupied by numerous inhabitants funded by a plethora of different government agencies and others.  Why? That way people can track whether your actions and approach follow from your stated goals.

2. Be open about funding sources. No one wants to read 990’s.

3. When you enter someone else’s space (unless you are intending to invade in the name of Climate) be polite to the natives. Enlist existing experts on a broad scale (social scientists, fire behavior folks, practitioners) for advice prior to generating models.

4. Use open peer and practitioner review of models and conclusions. I’m not sure how comfortable scientists feel critiquing something now, when it’s effectively too late.  Peer review by journals doesn’t actually impress many of us who have observed this.

5. Ground truth openly before release.

6. Be open about what’s not included.  Especially when that includes human behavior (aka ignitions, suppression), new suppression technologies, and other adaptation strategies.  To say things like “climate will make it x% worse (future prediction)” without including “but these other factors will also change (future predictions) is really, really common in the climate space.  I think it’s because people are difficult to model, or that it’s easier to invade the wildfire space from the physical model world which tends to ignore the social science world.

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

If these had been done, you would arguably have not needed a media push, as the information would be integrated into communities via their own trusted sources and opinion leaders.  This is the way of helping people learn that the technology transfer and extension communities have worked with for years.

 

Chief Moore Announces Prescribed Fire Pause and Review

by
Firefighters construct fireline on the Left Fork Fire in Utah which was caused by an escaped prescribed fire. Posted by the Dixie NF, May 12, 2022.

 

 

 

Thanks to Wildfire Today for posting this!  Here’s a link to the Chief’s announcement.

FWIW this seems eminently sensible to me.  Here are some excerpts:

Today, because of the current extreme wildfire risk conditions in the field, I am initiating a pause on prescribed fire operations on National Forest System lands while we conduct a 90-day review of protocols, decision support tools and practices ahead of planned operations this fall.  …

In 99.84 percent of cases, prescribed fires go as planned. In rare circumstances, conditions change, and prescribed burns move outside the planned project area and become wildfires.

The review I am announcing today will task representatives from across the wildland fire and research community with conducting the national review and evaluating the prescribed fire program, from the best available science to on-the-ground implementation. Lessons learned and any resulting program improvements will be in place prior to resuming prescribed burning.   ..

The pause I am announcing today will have minimal impact on these objectives in the short- and long-term since the agency conducts more than 90 percent of its prescribed burn operations between September and May.

My broader question is that the Forest Service is not the only group that does prescribed burning and has them escape (see the North Fork Fire conducted by Colorado or the Bastrop Fire in Texas).  That may be why people (particularly those impacted by these fires) get an impression that it might be more than 99.84 percent, or that it can be a problem.  The distinctions that make so much difference to us in terms of “who is in charge”  may not make a difference at all in the mind of the public when they think about prescribed burns.

Personally I know evacuees from the North Fork Fire (not fire experts) who are very suspicious of burning at times when they themselves judge it to be too dangerous.

How can we increase public confidence in prescribed fire when the organizational responsibilities and requirements are so diffuse and unknown? NGO’s, States, Feds, private landowners and so on?  I am SO not a fan of national standards, but FAA does give the public confidence in the safety of air travel.

I don’t think it would be out of line to do a similar review on Wildfire With Resource Benefits, although it seems to me like it might have best been done over the winter.

 

 

Carole King: ‘America’s forests are a key climate solution’

by

We recently discussed Carole King’s congressional testimony. Now she’s written for The Hill. Excerpts:

The U.S. Forest Service has been facilitating taxpayer-subsidized commercial logging for decades under multiple presidents from both parties. Subsidies incentivize companies to log on public rather than private land. And an operator of heavy equipment is motivated to “harvest” (a euphemism for turning a living tree into a log) the biggest, most profitable trees as quickly as possible.

Another euphemism is “thinning.” In many areas out west, feller bunchers clearcut a forest by sawing down and stripping nearly all the trees, leaving “slash” — the unprofitable branches, needles, and leaves — to dry out. That’s not thinning.

Misinformation disseminated under the guise of euphemisms such as “thinning,” “treatment,” “fuel reduction,” “management,” and “restoration” by the timber industry and by government officials has convinced much of the public that commercial logging is necessary to control wildfires.

But peer-reviewed studies by independent scientists show that removal of trees from a forest causes fire to burn hotter and faster — and that the most effective way to protect communities is to harden homes. 

Biden forest plan stirs dispute over what counts as “old”: ABC News

by

We’ll all need a glass or two before this one is over..

A hearty thank you to Nick Smith, who always has something interesting in his daily update. Here’s this one.

I don’t think anyone will be surprised to learn that people (wait for this…!) don’t agree on what is an old forest. In fact, we’ve discussed at least two incarnations of the same issue, during spotted owl days (1994), and HFRA development days (2002).

I got a chuckle out of this on Google.. question “What is the Northwest Forest Plan 1994?”

In 1994, the comprehensive Northwest Forest Plan (‘the Plan’) was initiated to end the impasse over management of federal forest land in the Pacific Northwest within the range of the northern spotted owl.

As my song parody went during the HFRA days (to the tune of They Call the Wind Maria, from Paint Your Wagon)

But old trees die, and then fall down,
And we’ve got premonitions-
But we’ll do fine,
We’ll move the lines,
And change the definitions!
Reserves, Reserves, we call those areas Reserves.

Fortunately they asked a knowledgeable prof, Dr. Mark Ashton from Yale who said:

Any definitions for old-growth or mature trees adopted by the Biden’s administration are “going to be subjective,” said Mark Ashton, a forestry professor at the Yale School of the Environment.

Already disagreement is emerging between the timber industry and environmentalists over which trees to count. That’s likely to complicate Biden’s efforts to protect older forests as part of his climate change fight, with key pieces stalled in Congress.

“If you were looking at ecological and academic definitions of old growth, it’s going to be very different from what the White House is thinking about,” Ashton said. “Even the word ‘mature’ is difficult to define.”

Groves of aspen, for example, can mature within a half century. For Douglas fir stands, it could take 100 years. Wildfire frequency also factors in: Ponderosa pine forests are adapted to withstand blazes as often as once a decade, compared to lodgepole pine stands that might burn every few hundred years.

There’s wide consensus on the importance of preserving the oldest and largest trees — both symbolically as marvels of nature, and more practically because their trunks and branches store large amounts of carbon that can be released when forests burn, adding to climate change.

But what exactly is “mature”? My discipline (always the underdog in any disciplinary discussion) would say “reproductive maturity.” I can almost hear the buzz.. wrong answer. Yes, a lodgepole stand might burn every two hundred years, but bark beetles often get them earlier. Once again, it seems like it’s difficult to get the mesic mindset (leave them alone) and the dry forest reality (they’ll get eaten or burn up or both) to form a coherent set of talking points.

Yay! Bipartisan agreement.

Concerns that warming temperatures, fires and disease could doom the dwindling number of ancient trees on federal forests drew a bipartisan group of lawmakers to California this month. They touted planned legislation to preserve perhaps the most iconic old growth in the U.S.: stands of massive sequoias that can tower almost 300 feet (90 meters).

Somehow I don’t think Hayes knows more about this than Ashton. Clearly he is quoting Groups Important to this Administration:

White House adviser Hayes described old growth forests generally as undisturbed stands with well-established canopies and individual trees usually over 150 years old.

“Mature forests,” he added, “are generally 80 to 150 years old and have many of the same characteristics of old-growth forests or are on their way to developing those characteristics if left undisturbed.”

Yes, “on their way to being old” would pretty much cover a lot of territory. Somehow the 80 number seems to have taken on a life of its own.

But let’s look at Hayes’ background. He’s a climate advisor with a background in environmental law. Interestingly, he was also a senior fellow at the Hewlett Foundation, who have a rather colonialist attitude toward the American West.

The vision of the Hewlett Foundation is to conserve biodiversity and protect the ecological integrity of half of the North American West for wildlife and people. Our goal is to conserve 320 million acres of public and private land across the North American West by 2035.

The Hewlett Foundation’s Environment Director also joined the Biden Admin working for John Kerry on climate. They also fund the Center for Western Priorities which has a good daily roundup of news but is run by political operatives, definitely with a partisan twist.

Fortunately, the Forest Service folks are (back) on this. Probably all the folks from the previous old growth efforts have retired.

Officials were developing a “workable definition” that would be made public, Hayes said. “Then based on a good definition, there will be the opportunity to … get real and protect these stands and safeguard them to the greatest extent we can from the threats that they face.”

Threats could include fire, drought, competition with younger trees, insect infestation and timber harvests, agency officials said in a statement. How those rank won’t be known until after the inventory.

I think the FS already knows how to deal with fire, drought, and competition.. take out smaller trees. And has gotten large chunks of change to do that, and also to figure out ways to use the material. Funded in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and other places. Still, I’m not seeing many options, though, that will keep old lodgepoles from bark beetles.

Aside: one of the forests in Region 2 had a concern with Roadless that they wouldn’t be able to go in and get spruce beetle killed trees removed before they became an outbreak. I don’t think this made it into the Rule, though. Perhaps the FS will amend Roadless rules to enable more insect infestation prevention? Just kidding.

And from CBD:

They want the administration to adopt specific rules to protect those forests, rather than vague management plans that would be easier for a future Republican administration to reverse. Environmentalists also want to stop pending logging projects on federal lands in Oregon, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho and other states.

“This executive order clearly calls out the need for protections,” said Randi Spivak with the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity. “I’m concerned the Forest Service will slow walk this until the clock runs out.”

Spivak acknowledged that definitions of mature may vary among different tree species, but said complexity was no excuse to avoid acting.

“If you’re looking for one age, 80 years is a good cutoff,” she said.

No whiskey for you, Dave and Randi! It’s looking like some wine is questionable also.

Note that the FS is back to being the fall person (“slowly walk this out”) when the current Administration doesn’t do what ENGOs want.. under the Trump Admin it was all Trump’s fault. And so it goes.

A Pragmatist Looks at: Oil and Gas Industry Hate

by
Is Shell still bad if it buys lots of windfarms? https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies/new-energies-media-releases/shell-partners-with-simply-blue-energy-to-develop-floating-wind-project.html

As promised, this is the next installment on trying to understand the sources of what I call “oil and gas industry hate”. There’s a relentless campaign in some quarters to publish stories about how bad the oil and gas industry is- it seems like several times a week. “Big oil” makes a nice target, but of course reasonable people might ask “what is small oil and what about those people and companies?” What about Teresa, the propane dealer, who has a fund for people who can’t pay their bills, and her workers? Or is it just extraction that produces the hate and moral judgment, and the rest of us can just use their products, and kick back in a hot tub of whirling moral rectitude?

Another thing that interests me about this topic is that we had/have a minor version of hate in some quarters (Oregon?)with the forest products industry. Similarly, the mining industry. But even the mining industry, including uranium, does not seem to release the 3Vs.. vituperous, vehement, vitriol in the public sphere that the oil and gas industry does. We could study this question by looking at the frequency of negative articles in various outlets.

Why is hate bad? You can perhaps argue that this isn’t hate, and that’s certainly worthy of discussion. Perhaps it’s really “righteous anger at a group.” Or something different.

I’ll start with the Buddha: “holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.” Buddha was making the point that it’s not good for us as human beings in general.
Of course, I’m more of a pragmatist, so I’ll move on to this Rob Bell podcast (Rob is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, but he made the point) idea that when someone angers you or you think they are wrong, use that energy to build something positive. Maybe talking about negative energy seems woo-woo to you, but if we’re going to go about moralizing and hating, then perhaps it’s time to reflect on wisdom of the ages, and what our ancestors had to say about moralizing and hating.

With all the words of all the university folks and media spinning by our heads about how simple and cheap the transition will be.. we can look out our windows and see combines and snowplows and transportation supply chains that depend on oil and gas right now. They won’t be carbon free until a) someone develops the technology and b) farmers and counties can afford to switch. So are we planning on hating on our neighbors.. oil and gas workers..until then? That will probably be fine for them, as “hated industry” folks tend to build psychic barriers to hate. But what are we doing to ourselves if we do? “What are you planning to do for the next 20 years, Vijay?” “Oh, I’m planning on spending my time castigating the oil and gas industry.” “But don’t you need to follow what they are doing? That’s a lot of work. All those companies.. all those metrics.” “No, I’m just going to follow a media outlet and they will tell me precisely how much anger and outrage I need to have.”

And to channel Rob Bell, what if we focused on sending positive energy, money and media coverage to those working on alternatives?

Ah, but Big Oil is bad so it’s OK to hate on them. But do institutions really possess their own morality? And do we have ground rules for when the past has tainted the institution sufficiently that we need to keep bringing it up? This Guardian article is a good example. It basically describes industry efforts to question the science behind climate change.. the article talks mostly about the 1980’s. There are two problems with this line of reasoning (they’re bad because they used to be bad and they haven’t changed), in my view.

The first is that they are blaming current executives, employees, investors, and other members of the corporate ecosystem for the sins of the past. Human beings have moral failings, and institutions are composed of human beings.. which.. change over time. If we’re in the business of institutional stone-casting, then, who among us? Certainly not the US Government, nor the Catholic Church, nor other industries (just think of alcohol, marijuana, sugar, media and the tech industry). None of these have clean records. The energies definitely have a scape-goaty feel to them.

The second is that it absolves everyone else of blame or “accountability”. Like, for example, the people who dreamed up cap and trade, a white collar solution (or neoliberal or whatever) for what I would frame as essentially an engineering problem (decarbonizing). And right after the meltdown of the financial industry? Of course, we should trust those people with the environment, they did so well with the economy- not. So perhaps other institutions bear their share of the blame for betting on a losing horse. Easier to predict than the climate in 30 years is the fact that the system was prone to gaming of various kinds including the known fact that forests burn up. Did people not know this..? And so we have articles like “forest offsets don’t actually help the environment” like this story in HCN. Thank goodness for federalism and for California, so that we can all watch their efforts to decarbonize and learn what paths work best. Or (some key) folks decided to ignore the Hartwell Paper. As a pragmatist, I always liked their language

accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.

I’m just a federal retiree with a WordPress account, but I’d like to see less stone-throwing, and more joint fact-finding and learning together about what works and doesn’t. I think we could do with less moralizing and more “relentless pragmatism.”

Many critiques involve oil and gas companies having well-paid executives.. well, every corporation does that, at least to some extent, including ones who run media outlets and internet apps and so forth. Not to speak of college athletic coaches, and celebrities.. that’s a much broader convo. As to influencing the government, the story is the same. I’m reminded of certain outdoor recreation interests (who depend on oil and gas products, of course) moving their trade show to Denver from Salt Lake City because of their views of the elected officials of Utah (they have since moved back). Personally, I think we should have special compassion for Utah because many people from a religious minority live there.. one that was persecuted by our own federal government. In all the coverage of the moves back and forth, though, I didn’t hear a critique of corporations trying to influence elected officials. So who is holding the bullhorn of rectitude and why do they point it at certain targets and not at others? That seems to be a key question.

When folks say “it’s morally wrong for you to do it, but it’s fine for me to do it”, we have a word for that- hypocrisy- which is also a moral judgment. But again, I’m a pragmatist so the problem with it for me is not morality. It’s simply that when you do it so obviously, people don’t trust you. Because as my wise forest economist friend once told me “you need to watch what people do, not what they say.” Lack of trust is the natural consequence of hypocrisy and lack of trust is ultimately a poison to our democracy. IMHO.

Colorado knows the steps to take that could reduce the destruction of wildfires. It just hasn’t taken them: CPR Story

by
Kathleen Gray, a U.S. Forest Service fuels planner, works a controlled burn outside of Frisco, Colorado., on May 2, 2022. Photo by Veronica Penney of CPR news.

Interesting article from Colorado Public Radio on Colorado and Denver metro-area fires, the difficulties of implementing state-wide regulations, how CWPPs aren’t doing the job, and how other states may have better policies. I’d be interested in hearing from folks in other states. There’s quite a bit of interest in the story, and I only include a brief excerpt below.

I also wonder if a lack of coordination among the different government levels (fed, state, country) and zones of influence (sheriff, fire, health) are problems elsewhere, and how they have been successfully dealt with. While building codes are important for structure loss, evacuation plans and testing are an even greater concern for those in relatively crowded forested areas. Does anyone do this (evacuation testing?). I know there are models, but…

Other states are better prepared for wildfire
In November 2021, Lisa McBee moved into her new home in Conifer. McBee, who moved to Colorado from Houston, knew there was some wildfire risk in her new neighborhood, but she did not realize how extreme it was.

McBee did not know her home was at risk for a simple reason: during the sale process, no one told her. In Colorado, Realtors are not required to disclose wildfire risk to properties during the sales process. She says she instead found out through discussions on Nextdoor, a neighborhood messaging app, where she also learned about resources through her local fire department. She later scheduled a FireWise inspection to learn how to make her home more resilient, which recommended she clear out vegetation on the property.

“Nobody wants to cut down 50 trees on their property, but then I also want to save my home,” said McBee.

Still, she said she would have appreciated more information about risk before moving in. “Would I have not moved here?” said McBee. “I don’t know. I mean, I love my house and I love our view and it’s beautiful, but, I don’t know if I would’ve not moved there because of that.”

After she finishes her property, McBee hopes to help her neighbors make their properties safer.

“The house next door, it’s like a thick forest to get to their house,” she said. “When we finish ours, I’d be happy to go over and help them, but you don’t know people’s circumstances — whether they can’t physically do it themselves, they don’t have the time to do it, they can’t afford to do it.”

Other states have also found answers to some of the obstacles to wildfire safety. In California, homeowners selling homes are required to bring their home up to code by making repairs or clearing defensible space prior to the sale. The home’s wildfire risk is also disclosed to the person purchasing the property, meaning a realtor wouldn’t risk losing a sale by telling potential buyers about wildfire risk if other realtors were not disclosing that information. Buyers like McBee in Conifer would always have wildfire risk information before the sale closed.

In Oregon and California, state agencies have mapped wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interfaces where homes and businesses meet forests and grasslands. Both states have also adopted statewide building codes in areas at risk of wildfire, understanding that even one home with flammable roofing or overgrown land in a community could spread flames to other properties.

“California and Oregon have been much more forward-thinking on this, in terms of implementing mandates and regulatory measures, than Colorado has,” said Brenkert-Smith.

In the meantime, volunteers like Latham are still working to get residents prepared.

“We need to do something, you know, we can’t just sit on our hands and wait for it to happen,” said Latham. “But it shouldn’t be that way. It really shouldn’t.”

Wildfire risk rating now available for 145 million properties in the United States: from Wildfire Today

by

Bill Gabbert of Wildfire Today has an interesting post on a new Wildfire Risk map.  Some commenters were not too impressed based on their ground-truthing.  Wouldn’t it be wise to “ground-truth before touting the accuracy of maps” rather than putting them out and telling everyone they’re correct? Is that way crazy? So Wildfire Today did some testing and so did the commenters. The results were generally not good.

It seems like modelers are driving way beyond their headlights… and acting if their models are somehow.. real.. Here’s what it says.. “Past events, current risks, and future projections based on peer-reviewed research from the world’s leading flood, fire, and climate modelers.”

Who is working at First Street Foundation? Not one of the usual fire suspects. Check them out. Their model looks very impressive and incorporates many variables .. check those out here.

Here’s their argument for why they exist:

What makes First Street Foundation unique

  • Custom built models to calculate property-level climate risk statistics
  • Transparent, peer-reviewed methodology that’s proven against real environmental events
  • Validated by millions of users every day who continuously improve the data and science
  • Easy-to-understand experience that’s trusted by industry leaders
  • Building details and structure characteristics are used to customize information for your specific property

Institutional real estate investors and insurers have long had access to environmental risk data from for-profit oligopolies who use non-transparent methodologies that do not advance science and which limit access to risk information for the country. Because of this, the majority of Americans have relied on sources such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the United States Forest Service, and other public agencies to understand their risk. However, these agencies are not tasked with defining risk for individual properties, do not consider how environmental changes impact that risk in the near-term future, and are often unable to incorporate the latest science due to the bureaucratic and regulatory restrictions within which they operate, leaving millions of households and property owners unaware of their true risk.

There has long been an urgent need for accurate, property-level, publicly available environmental risk information in the United States based on open source, peer reviewed science. In a mission to fill that need, First Street Foundation has built a team of leading modelers, researchers, and data scientists to develop the first comprehensive, publicly available risk models in the United States. Beginning with flood and now wildfire, First Street works to correct the asymmetry of information in the market, empowering Americans to protect their most valuable asset–their home while working with industry and government entities to inform them of their risk.

It’s great that they’re not a “for-profit oligopoly” but who funds them and what are their interests? I can’t really tell based on this.. because 990 reading is not in my skill set.

My house for example, was always at risk of wildfire. Because we live in a dry climate and things.. dry out. That’s probably why my insurance company has contracted with a private structure protection outfit.   When fires start (mostly due to human ignition) the key variables are 1) wind, 2)  fuel (houses, grass grazed or not, trees?)   3) how fast suppression folks get there, 3) if it’s too windy for air suppression resources, 4) how much grazing reduced fuels, 5) wind (did I mention that?). So wind is a big deal.

What about wind and climate change?  That appears to be a can of worms, partially because it seems like researchers are interested in questions like “will changes in wind speed affect energy from wind turbines?” And also because.. it doesn’t seem like they know.  I did find a paper from 2019..by Jeong and Sushama.. “Projected Changes to Mean and Extreme Surface Wind Speeds for North America Based on Regional Climate Model Simulations.”

The IPCC [27], however, reported that projected changes to extreme wind speeds based on GCMs are more uncertain than those to mean wind speeds because of relatively fewer studies on extreme wind speeds and the difficulties in simulating these events with GCMs.

And yet, the folks at First Street Foundation tell me..that my house will go from .07 to .22 in 30 years.  But they haven’t actually modelled, nor can they, the most critical factors. As they say..

Risk Factor™️ is most powerful when used in conjunction with the FEMA flood maps, WildFire.org, and other available state and local risk resources. Risk Factor should be viewed as complementary to the federally adopted risk maps for a community, which need to be used for building and permitting purposes. Risk Factor™️ allows individuals to easily view risk information at the property level, and provides useful information on potential actions to mitigate risk. More information on each community’s risk maps and mitigation plans, however, can be best obtained by contacting the community’s floodplain manager or local fire department.

The question is does is add any value to federally adopted risk maps?  What does the map tell you about your house, and does it make sense?