Day: October 6, 2011

Collaboration Can’t Fix What Ails Public Forest Management

by

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for sending this..

Collaboration Can’t Fix What Ails Public Forest Management

By Steve Kelly, Friends of the Wild Swan

For decades, forest activists have performed vital oversight, monitoring and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Caused by the rapid rise of neoliberalism, beginning in earnest during the Reagan administration, Congress and administrative agencies largely avoided policy responsibilities associated with our environmental laws. Politicians and agency bureaucrats have been screaming bloody murder about grassroots environmentalists and “gridlock” ever since. The simple fact remains, the primary cause of “gridlock” is the government’s systematic refusal to follow environmental laws and regulations.

The steady rise of neoliberalism in the Clinton years led to the now commonplace sharp political rhetoric, which directs its attacks toward the legitimacy of local grassroots forest activism. Add to this a proliferation of market-based, professional “problem solvers” touting “win-win” solutions and jobs, and one can see the game is rigged in favor of those with a vested financial interest in subsidized commodity extraction. This approach is typically dismissive of science and the law and grassroots activism.

Stakeholder partnerships prefer to engage in consensus and collaboration processes which favor a narrow, economics-based view of forest ecosystems. When challenged, collaborative stakeholders say one thing, and do the opposite, which usually leads to more old growth logging, and bulldozing new roads to access the remaining pockets of big, old trees.

One recent example of collaboration gone wild is the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which was authorized in 2009 under the Omnibus Land Management Act. The stated purpose of this collaborative program is to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes.

In practice, normal environmental assessment procedures, required by the National Environmental Procedures Act (NEPA), are being undermined by making decisions that may affect thousands of acres of public forest before conducting proper analysis of forseeable environmental impacts, especially cumulative impacts. Full funding has already been allocated by Congress and the Obama administration to a program that lacks a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NEPA just becomes a speed bump at the end.

Once a project has been selected a work plan and business plan must be developed within 180 days. These plans describe how projects will be implemented, treatment costs, infrastructure needed, projected supply of woody biomass and timber and the local economic benefits.

The work plan is then submitted to the Regional Forester for approval. Project
implementation may begin once the requesting unit has been notified that the work plan
has been approved.

All of this indicates that any NEPA will be front-loaded.

Here is a copy of the Friends of the Wild Swan Newsletter
**************************
I read this piece, but I don’t understand it. I know some things about NEPA but perhaps not as much as I should about CFLRP, so perhaps readers could enlighten me.

What does Mr. Kelly want a programmatic EIS on? A specific project?

NEPA doesn’t say that agencies can’t work with the public in developing proposals to be analyzed, in fact one of the ideas in NEPA is fostering public involvement. Doesn’t it make sense to develop a proposal before you analyze it? How else could it work? Would it be better for agencies to develop proposals without the public? Maybe I’m missing something here…

And I wonder about this quote:

Stakeholder partnerships prefer to engage in consensus and collaboration processes which favor a narrow, economics-based view of forest ecosystems. When challenged, collaborative stakeholders say one thing, and do the opposite, which usually leads to more old growth logging, and bulldozing new roads to access the remaining pockets of big, old trees.

It is a pretty broad brush statement about “stakeholder partnerships.” I think that some of the collaborators around the country might question whether their view is “narrow, and economics-based”. They might see themselves as seeing the big picture of sustaining the land and people, and working respectfully with each other to understand different views and find the best solutions. They might see others as “lawsuit-happy ideologues.” 😉

Sharon

Colt Summit- Garrity Editorial

by

Here’s the link, thanks to Matthew Koehler for submitting this..

Guest column by MIKE GARRITY | Posted: Thursday, October 6, 2011
Government has to follow laws as well

How ironic is it that while the Missoulian was chastising the Alliance for the Wild Rockies for filing a lawsuit to protect the environment in its editorial last Sunday (Oct. 2) the Alliance, the Environmental Protection Agency and Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality had just reached an agreement in a lawsuit originally brought by the Alliance 14 years ago.

The agreement has huge benefits for cleaning up Montana’s rivers, streams and lakes that would not have happened without the lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreement. Here’s a direct quote from the Reuters article that appeared in the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune and other major papers and media outlets nationwide.

“Richard Opper, head of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, credited the 14-year-old lawsuit brought by environmentalists with making the state ‘get its act together.’ ‘We lost the original case, and we deserved to lose,’ he told Reuters in a telephone interview on Monday. ‘In the old days, we weren’t following that federal law very well. Now we have a new attitude, and we are doing the right thing.’ ”

Opper’s quote and the credit he gives the Alliance for bringing the lawsuit is timely considering the Missoulian editorial board’s stance. More importantly, it brings the seminal issue to the forefront: We are a nation of laws, not a nation where a handful of “collaborators” can decide which laws will or won’t be followed. Government agencies, just like the rest of us, have to follow the law.

Had the “collaborative” Colt-Summit logging project – for which the Missoulian criticized the Alliance – followed federal law, the Alliance would have applauded it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The agency refused to follow the law or heed well-documented evidence. And so, as part of the process proscribed by law, we were forced to file a lawsuit in federal district court to stop this timber sale for the sake of taxpayers as well as the elk, fish, grizzly bears, lynx and a myriad of other old growth dependent species that rely on unlogged national forests.

Consider these points:

• The plan to log federally designated critical habitat for lynx and bull trout as well as prime grizzly habitat violates a host of federal laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act.

• The Forest Service’s own analysis notes that 94 percent of the project is in an area that the Lolo Forest Plan requires to be managed for the benefit of grizzly bears as its top priority. The agency also admits that logging and the new roads that go with it will reduce important wildlife hiding cover and that similar logging on adjacent private lands has harmed big game and grizzly bear habitat. Yet, the agency and the collaborators who support the logging plan fail to explain how reduction of existing cover levels on our national forests can possibly be called “restoration.”

• Contrary to Forest Service claims, the logging destroys lynx habitat since it drives out the snowshoe hare and ground squirrels, upon which they prey. The Forest Service’s own research show that lynx do not use forest lands that have been recently clearcut or thinned. In fact, forests that have been logged in the Seeley-Swan Valley are avoided by lynx.

• The Forest Service’s own environmental assessment reveals that this timber sale will cost taxpayers over $1.5 million with little in return except the destruction of critical wildlife habitat. Given the current national debate over government spending, an expensive and destructive timber sale to benefit a for-profit corporation is not defensible.

• The Alliance and its environmental allies fully participated in the Colt Summit process, which is required before anyone can file a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service’s decision.

“Collaborators” do not make laws – and we all have to follow the law. The Missoulian would do its readers a favor by remembering that before it criticizes the Alliance for the Wild Rockies – or any other citizen group – for trying to get the federal government to follow the law.

Mike Garrity is executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.