nie24

Wilderness & the Politics of Compromise

by
Storm in Owyhee Wilderness
Storm in Owyhee Wilderness, Photo by Nie

The former Solicitor of the Interior, John Leshy, says there exists in wilderness politics a tension between idealism and pragmatism. This tension is evident in the 1964 Wilderness Act and subsequent wilderness laws, for each is generally the product of some negotiation and compromise.   Though too simplistic, this split is helpful to understanding the past, present, and possible future of wilderness politics. 

At one end of the continuum are idealists who rightfully worry that too many deals are being made in order to secure wilderness areas that are too compromised and too small, among other deficiencies.  Their concerns are heightened when economic development, in whatever guise, is being traded for wilderness designation.  At the other end are pragmatists who rightfully point out that wilderness has always been about compromise and that concessions have to be made in order to move the agenda forward.  It is a debate that has been going on for some time.  Instead of Yankees v. Red Sox, think of George Nickas of Wilderness Watch versus Doug Scott of Campaign for America’s Wilderness (no pay-per-view for the latter). 

Compromise has always been part and parcel of wilderness politics.  This most often entailed the size of an area, the drawing of lines on maps, the releasing of lands to multiple use management, the use of alternative protected land designations, and fights over non-conforming uses and special provisions related to such things as grazing, access, and water management. 

Important to point out is the significance of precedent in these historic debates.  Special provisions are often replicated in wilderness laws.  Once used, provisions related to such matters as water rights and buffer areas are regularly stamped onto future wilderness bills as a matter of course. 

This history helps explain why some groups are so concerned about incorporating more explicit economic development provisions into wilderness legislation.  These concerns were sharpened with passage of Nevada wilderness bills beginning in 2002 that controversially included various federal land sales and other economic development goodies in exchange for wilderness. 

And these concerns continue to manifest in recent debates.  Take, for example, the proposed Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill—the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act.  This bill includes wilderness designation, land conveyances to Idaho counties and a city, and Congressional appropriations designed to assist adjacent counties.  (And at this point, all of these sweeteners have yet to win over key political representatives in Idaho or the county government-focused Tea Party in the state).

To no surprise, wilderness legislation is a product of its time and political context.  So many of the wilderness battles of the past pitted traditional gladiators against one another; wilderness advocates versus the timber or mining industries for example.  That was a relatively simple dichotomy. 

Also relatively simple was the fact that many wilderness battles of the past were about protecting rocks and ice—alpine and subalpine environments having relatively less economic value and pre-existing uses than lower-elevation lands.  Many current wilderness proposals, however, now aim to protect lower elevation landscapes—and thus landscapes with more historic uses and entrenched interests.  I suspect that the issue of political compromise and wilderness will become only more pronounced in the future because of the character of the lands being debated.  (The recent designation of the Owyhee Canyonlands comes to mind for example).  

So What’s Changed?  What is newsworthy, perhaps, is to consider how the contemporary political context is changing the wilderness debate…again.  Let me offer a few examples:

First, consider the widespread interest in forest restoration.  At a general level, the forest restoration agenda has the potential of rearranging traditional political alliances.  Restoration has certainly shaped a large part of Senator Tester’s controversial wilderness bill (see related posts on our blog).  Its proponents are seeking a balance between roadless area protection, various forest restoration goals, and a steadier and more predictable flow of timber.  Restoration is changing the terms of the debate in other places as well, with various “place-based” groups drawing new lines on maps, including areas to be prioritized for wilderness, restoration, and more active forest management. 

Or take motorized recreation.  This constituency is important for obvious reasons, and related concessions are made in several wilderness bills.  But motorized recreation has changed the wilderness debate in other ways as well.  There seem to be differences of opinion as to how great of threat motorized recreation is to future wilderness designation.  Some people believe that there is an urgency to designating lands as wilderness because of the growing threat of motorized recreation.  Some fear that motorized interests will increasingly use roadless areas and other protected lands and in doing so will establish historic use and diminish the characteristics that make these lands suitable for wilderness designation.  This perspective believes that we don’t have the time or luxury of waiting for the perfect large-scale unblemished wilderness law.   Those stars are unlikely to align, they say, so we must get on with more politically feasible protection strategies.   

Energy law and policy provides my last example.  This sprawling field will likely touch upon all of our federal land systems, wilderness included.  Take, for example, the proposed California Desert Protection Act of 2010 (click and read only if you have nothing to do for the next two days).  This gargantuan bill, in a nutshell (it wouldn’t fit), would designate wilderness areas, national monuments, and other protected lands and thus take roughly 1 million acres of the Mohave desert off-limits to renewable energy development.  But 119 pages later, that same bill encourages solar power production on other federal lands, including those managed by the BLM, USFS, and Defense Department.  Worked into the legislation is a hodgepodge of various provisions designed to expedite renewable energy—including its permitting and transmission—in California and other Western states. 

***

To conclude, I don’t want to overstate this trend because there are lots of old-fashioned wilderness bills and recently passed wilderness laws that are straightforward and uncomplicated.  The last Omnibus Conservation Law passed in 2009 includes several examples.  So there is nothing preordained about more compromise and economic development in future wilderness designation. 

Nonetheless, issues like restoration, motorized recreation, and energy development, among others, will continue to change the way in which wilderness politics is debated in the future.  They also bring to the fore a number of important questions. 

For now, consider two.  First, is wilderness law the appropriate vehicle to address related (and not-so-related) conservation issues such as energy development and forest restoration? And second, is the split between idealists and pragmatists a healthy one, a tension to be balanced? Or are these viewpoints working at cross-purposes to the disadvantage of wilderness and conservation?

Martin Nie, University of Montana

Place-based National Forest Legislation & Agreements: Report to USFS

by
photo by K.D. Swan

As our readers know, there has been a considerable amount of debate on this blog regarding place-based national forest legislation (e.g., the Tester and Wyden bills). 

A while back I put together some tables comparing various bills and formalized agreements, to see how they approach things such as NEPA, restoration, and other matters.  [Here it is, Appendix (comparison tables)]. 

Along with the National Forest Foundation, I also co-organized and hosted a symposium focused on the subject last June, with 80 people attending the event from across the country.  (here is a link with background reading).

I’ve done some further analysis since then.  The purpose of the Report is to (1) describe and analyze the recent emergence of place-based forest bills and the use of formalized agreements in the management of national forests; and (2) present alternatives to the USFS in how it can improve place-based legislation or provide alternatives to such legislation. 

 Here is my draft report in its entirety (USFS Cost Share Report).  Below are my key findings and recommendations:

 Key Findings

  • Place-based bills and agreements are a significant trend in national forest management.
  • Several place-based initiatives share a number of common characteristics and related provisions, including: (a) a frustration with the status quo, (b) the search for more certainty in forest management, (c) a focus on landscape-scale restoration and its relationship to rural communities, and (d) an emphasis on conflict resolution and the desire for more public participation in national forest management. 
  • Several place-based initiatives share similar frustrations with national forest management.  Forest planning processes, funding and budgets, organizational culture, personnel turnover, and a small-scale approach to forest restoration are commonly identified sources of dismay.
  • A defining characteristic of every place-based initiative is the search for more certainty in forest management.  The goal is pursued in numerous ways, including recommended land designations, the resolution of intractable conflicts, the use of stewardship contracting, and legislated timber supply/treatment mandates. 
  • The need for landscape-scale restoration is a commonly identified area of agreement by these initiatives.  This is most pronounced in places where historically low-severity fire regimes have turned into high-severity or mixed-severity regimes (e.g., dry-site forests of ponderosa pine).  Areas in need of restoration work are often identified and prioritized, with associated sideboards such as large-tree retention and road building prohibitions included. 
  • Several initiatives emphasize that a viable wood products industry is necessary for the attainment and financing of various restoration goals, and that industry needs a more certain supply of timber to be competitive and/or to make long-term investments. 
  • Several place-based initiatives are seeking more secure and structured forms of public participation in USFS decision making, such as through the use of memorandums-of-understanding (MOUs) and additional advisory committees. 
  • There are politically viable alternatives to place-based forest legislation, including formalized agreements (MOUs) and long-term stewardship contracts that provide interested parties greater certainty about forest management. 

Recommendations

  • Congress and the USFS should oppose forest-specific (non-wilderness) legislation until a number of fundamental and systemic concerns are addressed, including how such laws would fit into the preexisting statutory/planning framework and how they would be financed. 
  • Most of the challenges faced by the selected cases are systemic, not place-based.  Questions presented by such things as landscape-level restoration and NEPA, stewardship contracting, and funding, among others, deserve a national-level response—not a series of ad hoc remedies and site-specific exemptions. 
  • Long-term stewardship contracts can provide as much or more certainty to the timber industry than a legislated timber supply mandate.  Though imperfect, stewardship contracts are preferable to the dangerous precedent of legislating timber supply on particular national forests.  Congress and the USFS should consider a number of issues related to certainty upon the reauthorization of stewardship contracting authority. 
  • The selected place-based agreements, such as that operating on the Colville National Forest, demonstrate viable alternatives to securing greater certainty than through a legislated timber supply mandate.  The Colville framework is exemplary and deserves study for possible replication or adaptation elsewhere. 
  • Several place-based initiatives are frustrated by forest planning processes that provide little certainty and commitments by the agency.  As the USFS moves forward with its new planning regulations (to be finalized in 2011), it should consider how relevant these place-based initiatives find the zoning of national forests into basic management areas, including those areas prioritized for restoration. 
  • The best way for the agency to proceed with these place-based initiatives and their focus on restoration is to embrace a collaborative, competitive, and experimental approach.  There are at least two exemplary processes and frameworks that should be fully supported, and possibly enlarged and replicated in the future: the Montana Forests Restoration Committee and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act.  These preexisting frameworks offer a possible substitute for place-based legislation. 

Planning Without the Mess?

by
From www.theonion.com

One of my favorite political scientists (Elizabeth Theiss-Morse) co-authored a book a while ago entitled Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions (1995).  The authors remind us, if we ever needed reminding, that the democratic process is slow and often characterized by compromise, uncertainty, disagreement and conflict.  But the authors find in their exhaustive survey that Americans tend to actually dislike such democratic processes, including debate and publicly hashing things out, seeing it not as informed debate but rather as haggling or bickering.

 They conclude that:

People do not wish to see uncertainty, conflicting opinions, long debate, competing interests, confusion, bargaining, and compromised, imperfect solutions.  They want government to do its job quietly and efficiently, sans conflict and sans fuss.  In short, we submit, they often seek a patently unrealistic form of democracy.” Americans, they find, want “stealth democracy”—democracy without the mess.  They want, for example, both procedural efficiency and procedural equity.  “Just as people want governmental services without the pain of taxes, they also want democratic procedures without the pain of witnessing what comes along with those procedures.”

 Americans, it seems, are quite demanding. 

I keep thinking of this work as I read letters submitted to the USFS regarding the new planning rule.  I’ve now read dozens of these things.  And one thing most seem to have in common is a desire for an expedited and more efficient planning process.  Of course, who wouldn’t want such a thing, it’s boilerplate. 

But then, in the next breath, most of these letters demand the USFS to analyze something in more rigorous fashion.  This runs the gamut from analyzing ecosystem services, climate change, watersheds, restoration areas and priorities, biodiversity, cumulative effects, motorized recreational access, tribal reserved rights, and multiple possible timber production levels. 

It seems that even those groups whom have complained most loudly in the past about the process predicament and various planning pathologies want the agency to study something of their interest in more thorough fashion in the future.  Take, for example, the letter written by the Blue Ribbon Coalition, whom “fear we are poised on the brink of creating a fatuously self-indulgent planning process even further removed from the ground.”  (btw, I’m stealing the great line “fatuously self-indulgent, just excellent). 

But then, without hesitation, the letter asks the agency to study various things in more detail, like properly analyzing lost recreational opportunities.  The group also wants the USFS to include in plans at least one EIS alternative that enhances the importance given to recreation in the agency’s multiple use sustained yield mandate.   

I’m guilty of this too.  So the question, perhaps, is whether we have a patently unrealistic understanding of democracy…and planning?  And if so, what gives?

Martin Nie

All-Lands & Planning

by
Plum Creek/Lolo NF checkerboard

Without further details and language, I’m unsure of what to make of the USFS’s draft planning rule framework.  I’m anxious to see the draft language and learn more next week at the 4th Roundtable.  But I can’t help feeling somewhat positive about the agency’s apparent willingness to adopt an “all-lands approach” to planning. 

It’s impossible to fully exorcize the cynic out of me, so I realize that this might amount to nothing more than some recasting of ecosystem management.  But the Stuart Smalley in me says that this could be an important turn for the agency. (yes, I need my daily affirmation). 

Just a few years ago, during the 2005/08 regulations, several national forests revised plans without even acknowledging their broader landscape and ecological context.  

I found this incredibly frustrating.  How, for example, could national forests in western Montana not even mention the word “Plum Creek” in a revised plan?  How could the agency simply ignore the largest private landowner in the state and its real estate subdivision plans on adjacent checkerboard sections?  Such context would be provided during NEPA-analyzed projects supposedly, but I remain unconvinced, and still think a forest plan should situate a national forest in its broader landscape.   

In was within this context that Char Miller and I wrote the following essay (NIE Miller article (2)) (a few years ago actually, with the essay “in press” forever).  I lied, bribed, harassed, cajoled asked Char to provide the historical context and to set the stage for a few pretty general observations of my own.  Here is our abstract:

 The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) identified the loss of open space as a core threat to the health of national forests.  Widely acknowledged are the ecological interconnections between public and private lands.  But there is also an important historical and political relationship between national forest management and private land development.  There is ample historical precedent for the USFS to consider what is happening outside its jurisdiction and respond accordingly on national forests.  We expect national forests to become more politically contested in the future, as a result of the fragmentation taking place on private lands.  If the agency fails to consider the larger landscape when making decisions, we also expect a growing number of interests to challenge it politically and legally.  There are several policy tools and strategies that can be used to deal with the private land development problem, and we focus on a few approaches that have not received as much attention. 

I expect federal lands to become more politically contested in the future, as more private lands get developed.  A compensation principle will be hard to miss.  But an all-lands mindset might cut in numerous political directions.  Take grazing-lease decisions, for instance, and the debate over “cows versus condos.”  Will the demise of public-lands ranching lead to further land fragmentation as ranchers are forced to sell and subdivide their adjacent private property?  Debate notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask the Forest Service to consider the environmental impacts of their leasing decisions at a landscape level, with possible threats to private land included. 

My take is that the USFS is on solid historical footing; and that embracing an all-lands approach will pay political dividends in the future as well.

The Forest Service’s Fatal Flaw?

by
Road removal in Redwood State Park (CA). Adam Switalski 2004c.

Guest Post by Bethanie Walder, Wildlands CPR.  (as requested by Martin Nie)

Oedipus Rex, Macbeth, Willy Loman, Tony Soprano, and … the Forest Service? A diverse group with a common theme – tragic or fatal flaws. From ancient literature to modern times, people have written about, read about and dissected the concept of the fatal flaw. High school and college classes abound with papers about tragic heroes, fatal flaws, and what can be learned from them. While it’s been a long time since I’ve taken such a class, and my metaphorical synapses are a little rusty, it seems to me that the Forest Service may have a fatal flaw when it comes to implementing their new restoration vision: accountability.

One word may be too simplistic to describe the whole problem – which is really an issue of infrastructure-deficiency. Basically, the Forest Service has no staff, program, or office dedicated to implementing restoration at either the policy or on-the-ground levels, yet they have adopted restoration as their new vision for the 21st Century. The problem is, you can’t have a 21st Century vision without a commensurate infrastructure to enable you to implement that vision. To adapt a well known metaphor, “if all the Forest Service has is a chainsaw, then every restoration opportunity will be a tree.” The infrastructure and accountability issue is deep-seated and emblematic of how hard it is for the Forest Service to adapt to changing conditions – both politically and on-the-ground. To get a sense of whether this really is a tragic flaw, here are a few quick internet definitions of the concept (emphasis added in all definitions below):

“A tragic flaw is a literary term that refers to a personality trait of a main character that leads to his or her downfall. In other words, a character with a tragic flaw is in need of some kind of attitude adjustment.”

“The tragic hero is a longstanding literary concept, a character with a Fatal Flaw like Pride who is doomed to fail in search of their Tragic Dream despite their best efforts or good intentions.” 

While many people within the agency really do have the best of intentions when it comes to restoration, I am concerned that the Forest Service, without an “attitude adjustment,” is doomed to fail.

For more than a century, the Forest Service has operated largely as a provider of natural resources like timber, oil, gas, grazing, and even recreation. But supplying timber is what the agency is most known for. They’ve created an infrastructure that enables them to do this – though environmental accountability has long been a problem. In 2009, however, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined a new vision for the Forest Service: restoration. While creative agency staff have been implementing restoration projects for years, Vilsack defined a new guiding restoration vision with an emphasis on clean water.

The new vision however, still encompasses plenty of resource extraction. The agency’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget combines three major budgetary programs (timber, fisheries and wildlife, vegetation and watersheds) into one large pool to promote and hasten restoration activities on national forests. The proposed Integrated Resource Restoration Program or “IRR” (see RIPorter 15:1) would funnel nearly $700 million into a single funding bucket for “restoration.” The result is likely to be that every new timber sale will be a “restoration sale.” Again, if allyou have is a chainsaw, then every problem is most certainly a tree.

Accountability for how this funding would be spent, and whether or not it would result in real watershed restoration on-the-ground, is nowhere to be found. Similarly, the budget has no recommendations for the type of infrastructure changes (as opposed to simply changing funding mechanisms) that would enable them to implement such a program effectively and with accountability.

But this lack of accountability and capacity is not solely related to the IRR. The agency as a whole does NOT currently have the infrastructure needed to implement a robust, comprehensive, effective and viable restoration effort, yet they are asking for an enormous pot of funding to be dedicated to “restoration.” Their tragic flaw, therefore, may be their failure to create a new infrastructure to develop, promote, direct and implement their watershed restoration plans. While only the Forest Service can determine the exact infrastructure needed, we have some preliminary recommendations. For example, we think they should develop a national Watershed Restoration Program, led by a national Director of Watershed Restoration, with regional Restoration Directors, and we have proposed this to the agency. These staff should be trained in hydrology and/or aquatic/fisheries ecology, and they should be tasked with developing and implementing clear, science-based, ecoregion-specific restoration agendas for the agency that put resource needs over economic returns.

Lest this seem somewhat trivial, here’s a first-hand example of why Wildlands CPR thinks it so important for the Forest Service to create a proper structure to achieve their vision. The agency has received $180 million over the last three years to implement Legacy Roads and Trails specifically to restore and protect clean drinking water and other aquatic and fisheries resources impacted by roads. Many fisheries,  hydrology, and soils staff we’ve spoken with love this initiative, and it provides an incredible opportunity to move towards Vilsack’s vision. But because of their infrastructure, Legacy Roads and Trails, a potentially brilliant watershed restoration effort, is largely run by engineers. That’s not bad in and of itself (there are some enlightened engineers working on it), but quite frankly, most engineers love roads and have been trained to construct things. Few people like to remove their creations, yet road reclamation is a key purpose of Legacy Roads and Trails.

Initially, not recognizing their tragic flaw, we pushed the agency both to implement Legacy Roads and Trails immediately based on pressing needs, and to undertake a long-overdue national analysis of their road system to determine which roads they still need, and which they can reclaim or close. Way back in 2001, the Forest Service adopted a long-term roads policy that provided guidance for identifying a smaller, more affordable, and less ecologically damaging “minimum road system” that would meet recreational and resource management needs. Their 2001 policy envisioned the reclamation of 80-120,000 miles of system roads. To date, they have largely failed to identify that minimum system, even though doing so would provide the blueprint for how to spend Legacy Roads and Trails money.

But engineers are basically in charge of Legacy Roads and Trails, and thus in charge of implementing the minimum roads system, albeit with help from recreation and watershed staff. In March I asked some of the lead engineers in DC about their plans for this minimum road system. I was dismayed, but not surprised, to learn that they only thought they would have to get rid of about 25,000 miles to achieve it. This reflects the tragic flaw. When I asked the Chief about this and how to provide the accountability needed to ensure that a truly ecologically and fiscally sustainable minimum road system is identified, he said that it wouldn’t just be the responsibility of the engineers, they would engage other departments. But how? And who has final authority?  Where does the buck stop? Why isn’t there someone, a national Watershed Restoration Director for example, who is responsible for ensuring that the final decisions are appropriately balanced?

And this is only for identifying a minimum road system. What happens when you scale that up to $700 million a year or more with the proposed IRR? With no watershed restoration program, no Director of Restoration, and no accountability, it seems impossible for the agency to implement a new restoration vision effectively, or even at all. Unless, that is, they get an attitude adjustment – or as the case may be, an infrastructure adjustment.

Without a new watershed restoration program, the IRR, Legacy Roads and Trails, and any other new restoration efforts are likely to be mere variations on an old theme, as the resource extraction  mentality and structure of the agency butts up against their theoretical 21st Century vision. But it doesn’t have to be that way. The agency can make an attitude adjustment, they can create the necessary infrastructure and accountability, and they can implement the restoration vision that Secretary Vilsack and others have laid out. In typical tragedies, the “hero” is incapable of overcoming their flaw, and thus they fail. But this isn’t a story, it’s real life, and it doesn’t have to be a tragedy.

This essay originally appeared at http://www.wildlandscpr.org/article/forest-services-fatal-flaw

Place-based Bills & Agreements: Defining Characteristic #3: Frustration with Status Quo and Desire for Change

by

Martin Nie, University of Montana

Here is my third post focused on the defining characteristics of selected place-based bills and agreements.  I should have started with this one obviously.  But unlike the other posts on the topic, this one doesn’t emerge from just looking at those tables and associated documents—but required some further background, digging, and conversations. 

A third defining characteristic of these initiatives is a widespread sense of frustration with the status quo.  While differences abound, all of these initiatives want to change something in national forest management.  Though not universally agreed upon, there are multiple sources of frustration shared by members of these groups. 

Some group representatives, for example, express frustration with forest planning processes.  For some, the process takes too long, while for others it doesn’t provide enough certainty or predictability (as discussed previously). Compounding things is the fact that forest planning rules have been in a state of regulatory and legal limbo. 

Funding for the USFS is another commonly identified source of frustration.  All of the initiatives have taken shape in the shadow of a deeply problematic Forest Service budget that has been annually upended to pay for associated fire management costs.  Since the 1990s, the average annual acreage burned by wildland fires has increased by roughly 70 percent. At the same time, the Forest Service’s fire-related appropriations have more than doubled, representing about half of the agency’s total annual appropriations.   In order to pay for the costs associated with wildland fire suppression and management, the agency has regularly transferred funds from other Forest Service programs. 

For Senators Tester and Wyden, among other Senators recently writing to President Obama, money going to fire suppression is money not going to restoration and forest management: 

When the Forest Service’s general budget is reduced either by fighting wildfires or inflationary costs, other vital projects such as restoring watersheds, investing in infrastructure, and managing for ecosystem health are put on an indefinite hold.  These programs are critical to protecting our communities, adapting to climate change, maintaining our forest products infrastructure and improving ecosystem health.

Similar complaints have been made by others, and they cross the political spectrum.  For Russell Vaagen, Vice President of Vaagen Brothers Lumber Inc., and a member of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition, the Forest Service’s fire budget “is now squeezing every other non-fire program” and this constitutes a “disaster of epic proportions.” In representing Oregon Wild in favor of Senator Wyden’s bill, Andy Kerr similarly acknowledges the challenges of securing adequate funding to implement S. 2895: 

The best source of funds to pay down this ecological debt—by undertaking the necessary comprehensive forest and watershed restoration—is to reprogram current Forest Service annual appropriations that now go to a fire-industrial complex that wastes billions of dollars attempting to extinguish fires that cannot or should not be extinguished.

This budgetary backdrop adds another dose of uncertainty and frustration into the mix.  And this helps explain why so many initiatives are seeking more secure dollars from alternative funding sources.  Senator Wyden, for example, authorizes $50,000,000 to carry out the purposes of his bill.  Several initiatives are also competing for appropriations already authorized by the Forest Landscape Restoration Act.  And every initiative embraces the use of stewardship contracting authority as a way to pay for restoration and mitigate the problems associated with having to rely upon a highly uncertain Congressional appropriations process. 

Some of the dismay also revolves around the organizational culture of the U.S. Forest Service.  This theme emerged—unprompted—in several discussions with place-based participants.  Some people see the agency as a “paper tiger,” one forced to do more planning and paperwork than active forest management and restoration.  Others emphasize a perceived agency culture that is resistant to change and slow to embrace new ways of doing things.  One person went so far as to compare the agency’s troubles with the history of the U.S. auto industry.  Whatever the reasons, frustrations with the USFS partially explains why place-based initiatives are seeking legislation or formalized agreements, as both approaches ostensibly limit the agency’s discretion and force it to do particular things. 

Several people also expressed frustration with the Forest Service’s small-bore approach to restoration.  A common refrain, heard from conservationists and industry representatives, is that the agency manages and implements projects at too small of scale.  This is probably due in part to the agency’s fear of administrative appeals and litigation.  These challenges apparently get easier as the projects get larger in scope and scale.   The irony here is that the Forest Service, in Pavlonian response to appeals and litigation, are now thinking at too small of scale according to various interests.  Russell Hoeflich, Vice President and Oregon Director of the Nature Conservancy, played a consulting role in Wyden’s Bill and summarized the situation like this:

Controversies surrounding forest management compel federal agencies to plan restoration projects at very small scales.  To meet their action goals, federal agencies have to consider what is doable in addition to considering what is most important.  As a result, they often propose relatively small and narrowly-focused management actions.  On the other hand, ecosystems and the species they support interact in complex ways and at relatively large scales on the landscape.  The magnitude of the forest health problem demands working at vastly larger scales if we are to get ahead of the problem.

When viewed together, these frustrations, among others, help explain why these initiatives are doing what they are doing. 

P.S.  Just a reminder that registration for the upcoming symposium focused on place-based laws and agreements closes this Friday.

Place-Based Comparison Tables

by
Photo by Nie.

“Noneofyourbusiness lake,” Inventoried roadless area protected as federal wilderness under Senator Tester’s proposed Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. 

As part of a cooperative agreement with the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Service I put together a bunch of tables comparing key provisions of selected place-based bills and agreements.  The tables will be an appendix to a larger, more analytical report focused on the emergence of place-based bills and agreements. 

Here is the PDF version of the comparison tables (32 pp) (Place Based Bills & Agreements Master Tables).   Here is a letter explaining the work (Comparison Tables Letter).

I hope that the tables provide people with some useful information, a handy reference, and a big picture look at what is happening on different national forests.  The tables will also be used for background reading and reference for the upcoming symposium focused on place-based agreements and laws. 

I’ve already written a couple pieces trying to make sense of these things (one post focused on certainty, the other on restoration).  Very curious of other interpretations of the tables and what they mean.

Boundaries, Eh.

by

 

Photo by Nie.

A Canadian Whale? A Vancouver Canucks fan? Drink Labatt’s blue? Smoke du Maurier’s at a Tim Horton’s?  Other clues….

I spent part of last week at a workshop focused on “Integrating and Applying Conservation Science for Transboundary Coastal Temperate Rainforests.”  Basically a lot of intense time thinking about the Tongass in Southeast Alaska and the Mid-to-North Coast of British Columbia (including the Great Bear Rainforest, Haida Gwaii, etc.). 

I was struck by how similar the discussions were to those here on the blog.  People on both sides of the border are struggling with so many similar planning, management, conservation, and community issues.  Lots of the same stuff, but in a much different governing context.

One of the most obvious themes of the workshop is the importance of boundaries in forest management and conservation.  That this place is ecologically connected is beyond question.  It is collectively the largest temperate rainforest in the world.  The region also faces some similar threats, and not just those from the “timber wars” that have long characterized the region. 

Similarities and connections notwithstanding, the region is dominated by boundaries.  Consider just two.  First, there is the obvious international boundary.  So strong is this demarcation that is has impeded the sharing of information and makes it difficult to learn lessons from one another.  The workshop was designed to start chipping away at this problem. 

Another boundary is that between terrestrial and marine conservation.  One of the things making the Tongass so different (and special) compared to other national forests is its marine interactions and context (an archipelago).  Same goes for coastal/island BC.  Take, for example, the fascinating relationship between salmon and forests (a compelling story about why we need more holistic, integrated planning:  background on the “salmon forest project” and associated EquinoxSalmonArticle). Despite these interactions, approaches to protected areas most often focus on terrestrial reserves, and ignores the marine. 

There are other boundaries as well, from disciplinary to professional that play out in sometimes baffling ways.  Of course, a lot of this is old ground, and we don’t need to re-hash all the ecosystem management stuff of the past.  But the situation does raise a couple interesting questions from a forest planning standpoint, including:

1) Does an “all-lands” approach (as articulated by the USFS in its planning process) necessitate “due consideration” of adjacent lands in Canada?  (The NOI states that “plans could incorporate an “all lands” approach by considering the relationship between NFS lands and neighboring lands.  The threats and opportunities facing our lands and natural resources do not stop at ownership boundaries.” 74 Fed. Reg. 67,169. 

2) Are there examples of integrated protected lands/marine areas that are instructive from a wastershed/planning perspective? (The NOI states that “land management plans could emphasize maintenance and restoration of watershed health…”.

Place-Based Agreements & Laws Symposium

by
Another reason to travel to Missoula in June

I thought some of our faithful readers and contributors might be interested in attending the Place-Based Forest Agreements & Laws Symposium, to be held in Missoula, Montana on June 8th and 9th. 

I’ve teamed up with the National Forest Foundation to organize the event.  We have invited representatives from the following initiatives to Missoula:

  1. Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership Proposal (Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest)
  2. Three Rivers Challenge (Kootenai National Forest)
  3. Blackfoot-Clearwater Landscape Stewardship Project (Lolo National Forest)
  4. Clearwater Basin Collaborative (Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests)
  5. Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009
  6. Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (Lewis and Clark National Forest)
  7. Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition (Colville National Forest)
  8. Lakeview Stewardship Group (Fremont-Winema National Forests)
  9. Four Forest Restoration Initiative (Arizona)
  10. Alabama Forests Restoration Initative
  11. Wild Rivers Master Stewardship Agreement between the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Lomakatsi Restoration Project and Siskiyou Project (Oregon)
  12. Montana Forest Restoration Committee
  13. Wallowa Resources (Oregon)

We’ve confirmed most speakers and will have things settled by the end of the week hopefully. 

The plan is to learn more about these initiatives and have representatives answer questions posed by attendees and organizers (the latter written with feedback provided by USFS officials, interest group representatives, congressional staffers, and others).  Plenary sessions will be followed by smaller, more focused breakout sessions where we’ll try to have more participation and open-discussion. 

Here is the official invite with registration link:

The National Forest Foundation and the Bolle Center for People and Forests at the University of Montana invite you to join us in Missoula on June 8 and 9, 2010 for the Place-Based Forest Agreements & Laws Symposium. We look forward to an engaging discussion around the challenges, strategies, solutions-development and achievements of landscape-scale stewardship initiatives on National Forest lands.

Throughout the country, divergent interests are collaborating about how they would like particular forests to be managed. Many of these proposals include provisions related to forest restoration, economic development, wilderness designation, and funding mechanisms, among others.  Approaches include state-level principles, memorandums of agreement regarding how collaborative groups and federal agencies work together, landscape assessments that lead to on-the-ground work, and place-based legislation. Each initiative is different in significant ways, but all are searching for more durable, bottom-up, and pro-active solutions to national forest management. 

With so much happening so quickly we believe is the time to bring people together in a symposium to assess the big picture and help identify common problems and possible solutions.  We invite you to join us for a two-day event focused on place-based, landscape approaches to forest stewardship. In addition, we encourage you to forward this invitation to others who you think might be interested in participating.

Registration for the symposium is $100.00.  We are planning an event that mixes plenary sessions with break outs to explore specific issues in more depth. We plan to summarize the discussions and ideas in a synthesis paper following the event.

For further information and to register, please go to http://nff.wildapricot.org.  I recommend you bookmark this site for future reference, as we will continue to update the site with further information. We will soon be posting background documents about each of the landscape-scale stewardship initiatives that will be presenting at the Symposium.

Thank you, and we hope to see you in Missoula in June!

9th Circuit, Monitoring, and Viability…Again

by

Given all the talk on this blog about monitoring, NFMA diversity, and viability, etc., this recent 9th Circuit Case is another must read (file here: Native ecosystems v_ Tidwell(2)

I found it particularly interesting in light of the presentations focused on wildlife and monitoring at the planning science forum.  See e.g., presentations by Sam Cushman and Kevin McKelvey.

Here is a short summary of the case.  And here is a quote from it, sure to rabble the rousers:

“We do not share our dissenting colleague’s perception that the Forest Service can meet its obligations to the environment by naming a virtually non-existent species to serve as a proxy for critical habitat in the targeted area.  Far from usurping the agency’s role, our opinion holds the agency to its statutory responsibility to fully study the effects of the planned agency action, and ‘to maintain viable populations of existing species.’  It is unfathomable how the FS could meet its responsibility to maintain existing species by selected as a proxy a species that is virtually non-existent in the targeted area.

I also find the case interesting because it shows an unwillingness of the Court to defer to the USFS on these matters, despite all the ruckus created by Lands Council v. McNair, 2008).