The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views
Community Sourced, Shared and Supported
This post by Bob Berwyn on his Summit County Voice blog describes how to put Flickr photos into a WordPress blog like this one. So if blog entry authors or commenters would like to share photos, this is another approach to the google docs that Derek had experimented with.
The slideshow Bob posted is also quite lovely IMHO.
What is the role of the timber industry in Colorado? The current mill is on life support. Should we attempt to get back more industry in these tough times, or simply move on to other uses such as biomass? Or just let the material sit in big piles throughout the landscape?
See this story from ABC news.
Beetles that burrow under the bark of trees have killed about 21.5 million acres in the interior West, or more than 33,000 square miles, Tidwell said at a bark beetle summit hosted by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter.
The Forest Service estimates about 98,000 trees are falling each day, but government funding can’t keep up with how many trees must be cut to protect watersheds, people and infrastructure.
“We have a true crisis on our hands,” Ritter said….
The troubled Intermountain Resources mill in Montrose, which is in receivership, might process some of the felled trees, but costs of hauling trees cut in the north-central Colorado mountains to southwest Colorado are high.
That has left some logs to sit unused as contractors haul them to nearby private land rather than a faraway mill, said Patrick Donovan of Cordes and Co., the mill’s receiver.
The mill also has had problems making timber contracts with the Forest Service work out as struggles in the housing industry have affected timber prices, he said.
“We’re begging for logs. We’re willing to pay for logs, but we can’t get logs,” Donovan said.
Ritter said the silver lining to the beetle epidemic is looking for economic opportunity that can come from dealing with infested trees.
His summit aimed to set the foundation for how governments, the private sector and nongovernment groups can tackle the hundreds of miles of corridors where dead trees need to be removed, with limited funds.
“Mother Nature bats last. We’re just trying to keep the ball game going into extra innings,” said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
There’s another piece on the Summit by Bob Berwyn here.
Dixon and others once again addressed the fundamental economic issue associated with treating vast areas of beetle-killed forests, describing how existing market conditions make it a challenge to find value for the timber — especially now, several years into the insect epidemic, as many of the trees are quickly losing their value as timber that could be milled into lumber.
Still, Dixon said the traditional timber market will continue to be part of the solution.
“I think it’s true, we need an integrated market … we can’t lose our traditional market. We have to maintain what we have and be part of the dialogue to encourage new emerging markets … propellants, bioenergy, and biomass,” he said.
The Forest Service is working on statewide stewardship agreement with Colorado that could allow the state to serve as a “general contractor,” to help get around haul costs and address the challenges smaller operators face when it comes to getting bonded for the forest work.
I wonder if we’re seeing the beginning of the “post timber war” era, where people decide what they want to have on a landscape and, if there are byproducts of that use, we all get behind using the material, while building resilient, sustainable local communities. Some of us are the offspring of Depression-era parents who grew up with that old adage “waste not, want not.” Which echoes in the sustainability movement of today. As the Colorado Forest Service cap I have says “local people, local wood.” Or to expand it, local people, local food, local energy, local wood. Sounds like the refrain of a folk song, or perhaps a rap?
Seems to me like good work- is anyone out there against this?
Restoring local creeks, waterways
Work helps nature, ecosystems and new businesses thrive
By Kate Ramsayer /from the Bend Bulletin here
Karen Allen chooses native seeds to be planted in Camp Polk Meadow based on how much water the area will receive. She also works with engineers, fish biologists, hydrologists and others to come up with a plant design for a restoration project.
Karen Allen chooses native seeds to be planted in Camp Polk Meadow based on how much water the area will receive. She also works with engineers, fish biologists, hydrologists and others to come up with a plant design for a restoration project.
Ryan Brennecke The Bulletin
advertisement:As workers with J & S Trucking reconstructed a section of Whychus Creek this fall, placing logs in the banks and boulders in the creek bed to create fish habitat, the work was a far cry from what the company was doing a decade ago.
“We kind of got into it as a natural progression,” said Sean Kelly, owner of the Powell Butte company, which started as a trucking business. About seven years ago, they started focusing on heavy excavation, building roads and replacing culverts for federal land management agencies. Recently, they started working on specialized projects to restore creeks and waterways.
“During the building boom, guys really had to find a niche — and we really focused our attention away from the building boom and into the forest,” Kelly said. “It’s paying off now.”
With efforts to return salmon and steelhead runs to the Upper Deschutes Basin, the passage of Measure 76 to renew lottery funding for restoration projects, and focused efforts to make the forests less prone to catastrophic wildfires, some businesses in Central Oregon that focus on ecosystem rehabilitation are seeing a demand for their services.
“It continues to increase, and the jobs are getting larger and more complex as funding becomes available,” Kelly said. “And as these agencies see that it really works, they push to do more and more of it.”
Restoration work has picked up in the last five years or so, said Ryan Houston, executive director of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council. And as nonprofits like the watershed council and the Deschutes Land Trust start doing restoration or canal piping projects, they need businesses with specialized skills to help out.
“If we’re going to do 10 projects a year, we just need more help,” he said. “I think a lot of it is just the organic nature in which sectors develop. Those folks were always there, but they saw a business opportunity, we had a need, these pieces started fitting together.”
When the watershed council was planning its project to restore Tumalo Creek, for example, it needed a source of plants, Houston said. And it turned to Clearwater Native Plant Nursery, which was getting off the ground.
Mike Lattig, owner of the nursery, turned a botany degree and a gardening hobby into a business where he grows plants native to the area, both for large restoration projects and smaller landowners.
“There’s a demand for native plants, for sure,” Lattig said.
Business with the private landowners has dropped in the last couple of years as the economy tanked, he said, but recent years have also brought large restoration projects, which needed thousands of plants. And although there aren’t large projects slated for next year, Lattig said there’s a long-term need to restore salmon and steelhead habitat, and Oregon’s green mindset makes native plants a good business.
“There’s plenty of places to fix,” he said.
The passage of Measure 76, which stated that Oregon would continue to dedicate a portion of lottery funds for parks and natural resources, means that there will be a continuing funding source for good restoration projects, said Brad Chalfant, executive director of the Deschutes Land Trust.
“What the voters did, whether they realize it or not, is kept the partners working together, moving forward … and in the process, help incubate a growing field of restoration foresters, biologists, botanists, engineers, etc., that are doing this kind of work,” Chalfant said.
While jobs for a business like a logging contractor might fluctuate with the lumber market and can reflect the economy, he said, restoration projects are planned far in advance, and provide a little bit of stability.
“We’ll never replace all of the jobs that were lost in the woods,” Chalfant said. “But it allows us to start doing some things to address the crisis that we’ve got in our forests and in our streams.”
Karen Allen does plant design for stream restoration with her business, Aequinox. She works with the engineers, fish biologists, hydrologists and more to figure out what native vegetation should be planted where, based on how much water a site will get and other considerations. A big part of her business, she said, is working on projects that are tied to the efforts to bring back salmon and steelhead runs to the basin. After decades of planning, and the construction of a more than $100 million fish passage facility, a number of groups and agencies are working to restore the habitat where the fish will grow up and then return to spawn.
“There’s a lot of interest in that, and money available,” she said, adding that it is, however, niche work.
Work to make the forests healthier and more resilient to high-intensity fires is the focus of Darin Stringer, a part owner and forest ecologist with Integrated Resource Management.
“We work with a broad range of clients — Forest Service, state and local governments, not-for-profit conservation organizations,” Stringer said.
He’s worked with the Land Trust to develop a plan for the organization’s Metolius Preserve, designing forest thinning projects that would reduce fire risk and promote old-growth characteristics near Camp Sherman. And after that project, the Forest Service hired him to help design the Glaze Stewardship project as well as train Forest Service crews in how to carry out the prescriptions.
“In the last 10 years, I think there’s been a lot of movement toward forestry that’s not just timber-based,” Stringer said.
And after a jolt of stimulus funds, the money flowing to restoration projects should be pretty steady now, he said, and there are plenty of areas that could use some help.
“There’s a lot of money that needs to go back into the forest,” Stringer said.
Feeling some paid and volunteer work pressure reminds me that it has been a while since Martin and I specifically invited posts from readers. As in a real-world discussion, this is a specific invitation that a facilitator will often extend to those quiet individuals from whom we don’t usually hear. Martin and I would like to invite those of you who have never posted to consider writing a blog post. All we require is that you are available for online discussion when your post is posted; that you are amenable to possible editing, that you are gentle with people of opposing views, that your post is not an advertisement for a product or service, and that you share a little bit about yourself in terms of biography (a couple of sentences) or link to a biography online.
What we will commit to do is to edit, do formatting (links, etc.) if you are not comfortable with html, and moderate the comments so that it is a safe place for you to express your ideas.
You can get an idea of the topics of interest to our readers by reviewing a couple of weeks of posts and comments, or looking at the categories on the right. Just pointing to books or papers you think are valuable or interesting (and why you think so) is also something we’d appreciate. Book reviews are of interest. Finally, any feedback on the blog, including suggestions for improvement, are always appreciated. Please email to me ([email protected]) and/or Martin ([email protected]).
Here’s a link.
Based on this article, these projects should:
1) reduce costs for schools compared to fuel oil for heating
2) employ people in the State of Maine
3) meet EPA air quality standards
So conceivably we are comparing the environmental benefits and costs with that of fuel oil. Remember on our previous post we talked about some of these:
Environmental impacts of removing from ground.
Environmental impacts of transportation from location to processing site
Environmental impacts of processing activities
Environmental impacts of transportation from processing center to site of use
Environmental impacts from use at site of use.
So what we would need to do is examine all of these impacts from local wood use compared to fuel oil.
Here is an article about wood for fuel in Maine and the results of the Governor’s Taskforce from the Maine Democrat website.
Here are some quotes from this article:
Wood pellets are a great option for the people of Maine. Some are converting their systems, pulling out their old natural gas, oil or propane furnaces and installing wood pellet furnaces to heat their homes or businesses,” said Commissioner of the Department of Conservation, Patrick McGowan, who is heading up the initiative. “Most people are buying wood pellet stoves and to supplement the oil, propane or natural gas furnaces and they have found real savings. The DOC changed over our forestry operations for the 07-08 winter, and cut costs in half. Now with oil prices even higher, we will see greater savings.”
With home heating oil at $4.70 a gallon, it amounts to thousands to heat an average Maine home. Residents are now looking for home heating security. Wood pellets, made in Maine, are a local natural resource. The pellets are made from sawdust, or wood waste from mills or forests. They vary in quality depending on the stock source. Maine’s forests could be part of a readymade solution to the energy crisis.
“This is a Maine solution, using a Maine natural resource, processed at Maine plants, employing Maine people at a stable price. Energy prices connected with fossil fuels have all gone way out of sight. What we know is there is no shortage of oil; they are blaming it on speculators for the most part. But, it’s greed on the part of oil companies. People of Maine are struggling. It’s not your local oil dealer that’s making this money. He’s still working the same margin they worked on for the past two decades.”
I also think there is some congruence between the statements above and those of Chris Huhne UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in his remarks in China earlier this week as posted here.
Regardless of the public consensus on climate change, it is clear that relying on increasingly rare fossil fuels is not a long-term option. We cannot be exposed to the risk of resource conflict. Nor can we afford to remain at the mercy of volatile fossil fuel markets.
Not only are we vulnerable to interruptions in supply, we are also exposed to fluctuations in price. Oil or gas price shocks could reverberate throughout our fragile economy, hampering growth.
A more sustainable supply of energy is not an expensive luxury. It is a critical component in our national and economic security.
Next Thursday, Nov. 18, marks the 40th Anniversary of publication of the “Bolle Report” in the Congressional Record in 1970 (Bolle Report in pdf). Our readers are likely familiar with the Bitterroot controversy and the importance of the Bolle Report in shaping contemporary National Forest law and management. But here is some background I wrote a while back just in case:
The Bitterroot controversy was a major flashpoint in American environmental history that engendered significant changes to national forest policy. It served as an important reference during a larger national debate about public lands management. The case brought into stark relief several issues that would come to characterize U.S forest politics and conflict, including the practice of clearcutting, forest economics, road building, federal budgetary pressures, and the role of public participation in natural resources management.
Responding to increased demand, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) began to more aggressively harvest timber after World War Two. This national change in management philosophy, from so-called custodian to timber production agency, was very apparent on the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF), located in the northern rocky mountain region of western Montana and Idaho. Here, the USFS used clearcutting and terracing silvicultural techniques to meet its timber production goals. Several citizens of the Bitterroot Valley, however, disliked this degree of intensive forest management and charged that it was environmentally and aesthetically harmful. Among other complaints, citizens objected to the practice or intensity of clearcutting and/or terracing, stream siltation and watershed impacts, excessive road building, the level of timber harvesting, real estate effects, and the inadequate attention given to other multiple uses.
In response, the BNF conducted its own task force appraisal acknowledging that land management could be improved and that communication between the agency and public had been “seriously inadequate.” It found insufficient multiple use planning principally at fault for management problems on the Bitterroot. It also observed an implicit attitude among personnel that “resource production goals come first and that land management considerations take second place.” But in the agency’s defense, it noted how this pressure to meet production goals comes from the federal level, and that Congress and the Executive branches had shown great interest in making sure the BNF met its timber sale objectives. While the Task Force admitted that mistakes had been made in the past, it defended the approved allowable cut on the forest, and found other criticisms regarding environmental impacts unwarranted.
Shortly thereafter, Montana Senator Lee Metcalf, from the Bitterroot Valley himself, responded to widespread constituent complaints about forest management, especially about clearcutting and the dominant role of timber production in USFS policy, by requesting an independent study of the problem by Dean Arnold Bolle of the University of Montana’s School of Forestry. Bolle appointed a select group of faculty members from the University of Montana to investigate, and this group went further in its critique of forest management on the Bitterroot and beyond.
The Committee began its report with the startling statement that “[m]ultiple use management, in fact, does not exist as the governing principle on the Bitterroot National Forest.” It viewed the controversy as substantial and legitimate, with local and national implications. The Committee’s approach was to contrast the actions of the USFS with the written policies and laws governing forest management. From there, the “Bolle Report,” as it became known, criticized the Bitterroot’s “overriding concern for sawtimber production” from an environmental, economic, organizational, and democratic standpoint. Other multiple uses and resource values were not given enough serious consideration according to the Report: “In a federal agency which measures success primarily by the quantity of timber produced weekly, monthly and annually, the staff of the [BNF] finds itself unable to change its course, to give anything but token recognition to related values, or to involve most of the local public in any way but as antagonists.” The subculture of forestry, it seemed to the Committee, was out of step with shifting American values and goals. Though professional dogma was partly to blame, the Bolle Report also found that “[t]he heavy timber orientation is built in by legislative action and control, by executive direction and by budgetary restriction.” The Report also focused on the economic irrationality of clearcutting and terracing on the Bitterroot, and the serious lack of democratic participation in forest management.
Together with a parallel case on the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, the Bitterroot controversy helps explain the significant changes that were made to U.S. forest policy in the 1970s, including new guidelines on clearcutting in the National Forests, and passage of the National Forest Management Act in 1976. Though its significance continues to be debated, the latter at least partly addressed some of the issues in the Bitterroot conflict, like by placing limits on clearcutting, and giving the public a more meaningful role to play in forest management and planning. But these and other issues, like top-down federal budgetary pressures, road building, the economics of forestry, and the purpose of planning continue to cause controversy.”
A few years ago I spent a few days going through Dean Bolle’s files and correspondence that are archived here on campus. I left pretty humbled and a few things struck me. First, it made me really appreciate how controversial the Report actually was at the time. Newspaper coverage and clippings galore. And the Bolle Committee certainly took their lumps from disgruntled powers, from Montana’s timber industry to the Society of American Foresters. But it was also neat to see letters from distinguished faculty members from all over the country that were so impressed with the mavericks at Montana, some asking Dean Bolle how they could come to Missoula and do work that matters.
A lot has obviously changed since 1970. Take the Bitterroot for starters, as one could make the case that motorized recreation and development in the wildland urban interface are now the big issues of the day. When it comes to forest management, the general context is fundamentally different than it was back then, from new science and law to international trade deals.
But some of the issues addressed in the Bolle Report have been stubbornly persistent. Problematic Forest Service budgets, road building, the economics of forestry, and the purpose of planning and public participation continue to cause controversy. Consider, for example, some of the debate on this blog about financial incentives and the USFS and the use of commercial timber sales. And Some of our contributors still reference things said by some Bolle Committee members, like Dick Behan’s provocative argument that NFMA was a “solution to a non-existent problem.” He wasn’t exactly enamored with the forest planning mandate that somehow came out of the Bitterroot/Monongahela controversies—what he considered to be place-based problems with place-based solutions.
And so here we are, closing in on 2011, and we continue to ask about the purpose of planning, the adequacy of NFMA, and the meaning and future of multiple use.
Martin Nie, University of Montana
One of the great things about living in Golden, Colorado is that we (along with Boulder and other communities around here) are a nexus of the renewable energy and climate science research world. In addition, we have producers of oil and natural gas and coal, and scientists and lawyers who deal with these industries. For example, here is a session put on by University of Colorado Law School, Natural Resources Law Center on Friday exploring technological, economic, environmental and regulatory issues around shale plays in the Interior West. There is probably nowhere better to have an informed debate around climate and traditional and new energy technologies. One of my current pet projects is attempting to engineer practitioner- academic dialogues about climate and energy issues where they overlap with public lands and forest issues (like this blog, only in person).
Friday afternoon I attended a lecture by Michael Hulme, the author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change. I thought that this was a great book; but if you want to get a shorter version of some of his ideas, try this piece.
When I was working on this post, I discovered that Mark McCaffrey had already summarized yesterday’s lecture here (and taken better notes; ain’t the internet grand?).
Here are the six framings of climate change that Hulme presented:
1) Market failure (Stern report, etc.) with solution of price on carbon/price signal.
2) Technological failure with solution being massive investment in renewable energy and innovation.
3) Global injustice with solution being addressing the needs of the +1.5 billion living on dollars a day.
4) Symptom of overconsumption, with solution being radically reducing consumption, especially for those who live on $200 a day or more.
5) Climate change, if it is happening, is mostly natural, with adaptation being the typical “solution”.
6) Planetary “tipping point,” which, in the view of Jim Hansen, who introduced the concept of climatic tipping points, will require reducing concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million or less.
So I asked Hulme in the Q&A session why we seem to be fighting about the framings instead of moving toward the obvious common solution found in framings 2, 3, 5 and 6. If low carbon energy were cheaper and environmentally better, everyone would adopt it and it would help poorer countries and regions- and people who didn’t believe in AGW would choose it because it was cheapest. He said that’s what folks who worked on the Hartwell paper thought.
Here’s a link to the Hartwell paper and a quote:
The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.
It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate. It
argues that improved climate risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply
congruent with carbon policy. It explains the political prerequisite of energy efficiency
strategies as a first step and documents how this can achieve real emissions reductions.
But, above all, it emphasisses the primacy of accelerating decarbonisation of energy
supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in noncarbon
energy sources in order to diversify energy supply technologies. The ultimate
goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less
than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low
hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such
money productively.To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or
necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around
human sinfulness –which has failed and will continue to fail.The Hartwell Paper follows the advice that a good crisis should not be wasted
So what is the connection to matters on this blog? I wonder if these framings could help us better understand each other as we move forward to discuss biomass for energy as in this post and comments.
Title of article in the Epoch Times by John Christopher Fine.
According to Wikipedia,
The Epoch Times (traditional Chinese: 大紀元; simplified Chinese: 大纪元; pinyin: Dàjìyuán) is a multi-language, international media organisation. As a newspaper, the Times has been publishing in Chinese since May 2000. It was founded in 1999 by supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual discipline.
The paper covers general interest issues, China, and human rights.
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about Dr. John Christopher Fine..
John Christopher Fine of Scarsdale, New York is a marine biologist with a doctor of jurisprudence degree and has dived on shipwrecks all over the world. He is a Master Scuba Instructor[1] and Instructor Trainer, and the author of over two dozen books on almost as many topics, including award-winning books dealing with ocean pollution. He has authored both fiction and non-fiction books.
The liaison officer of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques, Fine is a fellow of the Explorers Club[2] and a member of the Academy of Underwater Arts and Sciences, a recognition he received in honor of his numerous books in the field of juvenile education. He has been the recipient of international recognition for his pioneering work investigating toxic waste contamination of our land and water resources
I just thought it was interesting that folks besides the usual suspects are writing and reading about the Interior West pine beetle issue.
with apologies to Lewis Carroll
The time has come, the Blogger said
To talk of many things:
Of carbon and of issues
That biomass use brings
And whether fossil fuels are best—
Giv’n all considerings
I was hoping to have time to approach this topic in an organized way, but that will not happen in the foreseeable future. It’s probably time to plunge in, starting with thinking about the carbon neutral concept. Matthew Koehler had some relevant papers in his posts #1 and #2 here which we can go back to when we talk about this.
We also had a previous post here on the Manomet study.
To me, though, the starting point has got to be understanding the different approaches to carbon accounting and why they are different.
here is a a fairly straightforward approach by Steve Wilent in the Forestry Source. What do you think?
f you think “sustainable,” current king of buzzwords surrounding forestry, is over-used and difficult to define, its successor is even more problematic: “carbon neutral.” Energy produced from forest biomass is said to be carbon neutral, because any carbon dioxide released is later sequestered as new biomass grows. This is true. You might also argue that the combustion of woody biomass releases carbon that the trees already had sequestered, thus paying off any CO2 debt by withdrawing on a CO2 deposit account.
Some states, environmental groups, and, in a recent ruling, the US Environmental Protection Agency, assume that all carbon dioxide is equal, that CO2 from the combustion of forest biomass is the same as CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. That’s true, too. CO2, regardless of its heritage, affects the earth’s climate in the same way. So, there are valid arguments on both side of the carbon-neutral issue.
However, the argument is, for the time being, irrelevant. Although the ultimate goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the biosphere, there is little chance of a meaningful reduction in the short term. There are as yet no non-carbon-emitting alternatives to fossil fuels that are both less expensive and as widely available. Until the development of such alternatives—solar power being the ideal, since an unlimited supply is available—it is better to use non-fossil fuels such as biomass.
Look at it this way: CO2 exists both in the biosphere (air, water, soil, plants, animals, and so on) and below the biosphere (fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas). The concentration of CO2 in the biosphere—in particular, in the atmosphere and oceans—has increased because we humans have transferred large amounts of fossil carbon to the biosphere, largely through the combustion of fossil fuels.
As we work toward greater energy efficiency and develop new carbon capture and storage technologies, one of our primary goals ought to be to slow that transfer of CO2.
The Forestry Source- Anyone wishing to subscribe can go to this page: and click on Subscribe. Costs $42 for individuals, $79 for institutions.
Here are some links contributed by Lynn Jungwirth and her thoughts…
This, I think, is where we are going with forest planning efforts……. I think this is what TNC is doing with their Fire Learning Networks….creating learning networks. The Berkes article contrasts decision making collaborative with learning collaborative and puts them in the context of adaptive management….so now, the term is “adaptive co-management”. I think the jig is up in terms of thinking that there are natural systems and social systems……7 billion people puts us at eco-socio systems…..and these guys are trying to figure out what is emerging in terms of “bright spots” of success for that…
Here are the papers she sent Hill.etal_2010_adaptive.co-management_Australia, Cundill.and.Fabricius_2010_adaptive.monitoring and Berkes_2009_adaptive.co-management.
Clearly landscape scale collaboration is the way to go.. as so many currently funded initiatives in the federal agencies would attest. They are almost too numerous to list.
It may take a while to read the above papers for all of us busy people, but I’d be interested in hearing from readers in the next few weeks.. which ideas do you think are the most key to have in forest planning (or in a forest planning rule) and why?