Oregon Forest Accord Signed: Op-ed in Oregonian

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.

A New Book on Wicked Problems by Professor Brian Head: With Flashbacks to Dave Iverson

 

Some of you may remember Dave Iverson talking about “wicked problems”, in his Eco Watch Dialogues? At that site, I found this link to a 1999 article by Bruce Shindler and Lori Cramer of Oregon State University. In which they say:

many forest professionals were introduced to the term wicked problems in a provocative 1986 Journal of Forestry article by Allen and Gould who borrowed the phrase from the systems analysis research of (Rittel and Webber, 1973)

And of course, that was a while back.

In my hunt, I discovered that the EcoWatch Dialogues go all the way back to 1990, still on the web. Many fascinating articles and discussion. And here’s a link to a post by Dave on the topic on TSW in 2011.

So here we are in the 2020’s and the London School of Economics “Impact of Social Sciences” blog has a post by Brian Head discussing his new book “Wicked Problems in Public Policy“.  Head is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Queenland, Australia.   TSW readers are invited to review this book, which is open access (yay!). Some quotes from his blog post:

First is the well-known critique of rationalist claims that the policy process should be substantively based on rigorous ‘evidence’. In rebuttal, critics state that stakeholder interests and experience are crucial, that public policy decisions are ultimately political, and that accountability must rest with elected governments. Underpinning this are five common claims:

  • evidence is always incomplete, especially for complex and evolving issues;
  • evidence includes many forms of knowledge, which are often inconsistent;
  • evidence is always subject to value-laden interpretations, hidden or overt;
  • evidence is inevitably “cherry-picked” by governments and stakeholders to support their preferred positions; and
  • reliance on specialized expertise implies technocratic and undemocratic styles of decision-making.

The second key reason for the malaise is the rapid rise of mass communication channels that propagate misinformation, personal beliefs, and vilification of opponents. Polarisation intensifies in-group bias and provides excuses for ignoring alternative information. Partisan polarisation undermines community confidence in procedural fairness and legitimacy, which are crucial for trust in public institutions. In the face of this tsunami of propaganda and incivility, the enlightenment model of reasoned debate in the public sphere has been deeply wounded. In responding to this wave of ‘post-truth’ anti-science, the defenders of evidence-informed debate and civic education have created new networks to discuss strategy, share information, improve their communication of evidence-informed policy ideas, and develop new tools for fact-checking or reviewing the claims of partisan advocates.

(I think the humble Smokey Wire might be one of those “new networks”).

The third key reason for concern about the future of evidence-informed policymaking is that so many policy problems are intractable, controversial and turbulent. This is the domain of ‘wicked’ problems

The third key reason for concern about the future of evidence-informed policymaking is that so many policy problems are intractable, controversial and turbulent. This is the domain of ‘wicked’ problems, as outlined in Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Wicked problems are characterised by complex interactions, gaps in reliable knowledge, and enduring differences in values, interests and perspectives. Unfortunately, ‘more science’ cannot resolve these conflicting views, and therefore more data cannot directly help to de-politicize the partisan divide. Wicked problems include long-standing, yet continually evolving problems such as: refugees and immigration, human rights and inequalities, climate change, food security, water and energy security, biodiversity protection, terrorism, and the peaceful resolution of major disputes.

….

Finally, it is true that there are no neat and correct answers to wicked problems. They might not be solvable in the short term. But there are ways to better understand and manage them. For example, inclusive processes for considering the nature of the problems and possible paths toward improvement are often more beneficial than ideological solutions imposed by government. Good quality knowledge and analysis are always useful, but information alone cannot transform complex problems into simple solutions. Information-based strategies are only one important thread in the policy mix required to enable us to tackle the wicked features of complex and contentious problems.

………..

Each problem has a unique history, even though many problems closely interact with others (such as poverty, housing, health and education). Solutions are provisional and contingent. They are temporary political accommodations, depending not only on best available evidence but also on stakeholder perceptions and the capacity of leaders to negotiate shared goals.

……………

The case for using social experimentation and co-design processes is mainly pitched at the local level, rather designing mainstream national programs. These collaborative agendas and methods are very diverse. Choices need to be ‘fit for purpose’, working with relevant stakeholders and adapting to the nuances of each challenge. Collaborative and coordinated approaches are widely recommended, but the difficulties of successfully implementing such approaches are well known and skilled leadership is needed.

 

What struck me about this post is the fact that science folks are rewarded (by journal articles, media, and other professional rewards) for generalizing (does my study relate to a Ranger District in the Sierra? the Sierra? California? Dry western forests? North America? Global forest change or biodiversity?  As science becomes more models than empirical, more satellite data than on the ground, related to abstractions (defined by academics generally) such as climate change or biodiversity or regenerative agriculture.. does it drift away from having utility in solving wicked problems?

Politicians often prefer a quick fix or a simple ‘solution’ for managing a complex policy problem. In many cases, government leaders will attempt to impose their own preferred solution, either to appease their own supporter base (‘keeping promises’), or to close down the debate. This is often ineffective and sometimes counter-productive. In the long run, differences in stakeholder values and interests need to be acknowledged, and methods found to accommodate diversity and equity. This is a challenge for political leadership, as much as a challenge for evidence and expertise.

In the case of our issues, it is interesting that how many of these are seen through a national lens.  And as we often discuss, certainly federal lands belong to all people, but still perhaps the national or international view is not the best way to manage the set of wicked problems therein

Peter Williams on Valuing Collaborative Input to Agency Decisions

Happy St. Patrick’s Day everyone! It’s snowing and blowing and drifting here pretty seriously so I won’t be heading to the pub.

I thought everyone could use a break from trying to understand the complexities of oil and gas production.. so here’s a brief post by Peter Williams, as a collaboration literature expert,  in answer to my question:

If you have a collaborative group and the FS doesn’t accept their recommendations, is there some literature around what is considered “good faith”, or what is input that is accepted or valued, and how do you tell if it’s valued if it’s not entirely accepted?

Granted, now that I look at it, perhaps I went off a little bit bringing up the “good faith” concept, but I think his answer is still helpful.

On the good-faith question, the literature is difficult because “good-faith” has a specific meaning in business, as does “stakeholder”, and also collaboration tends to mean something different in the private sector than the public because of the question of “decision authority” or responsibility. The question or phrase is different in each of the two sectors.

I guess a third consideration might be that a “values-based” or values-driven decision process can lead to a situation where a recommendation isn’t followed, but the values driving that recommendation are applied to make a different decision. That result would seem consistent with a collaborative process, whereas a collaborative process that produces a recommendation and then treats the recommendation as somewhat of a “position” is actually less collaborative than some participants might realize (Kuhn would call this “internally inconsistent” in his discussion of scientific revolutions).

Here’s an example from the business world where “good-faith” and stakeholder are both emphasized, but in a different way than you and I would mean:

**Here’s the abstract of that paper for those interested:

Abstract
Although stakeholder theory is concerned with stakeholder engagement, substantive operational barometers of engagement are lacking in the literature. This theoretical paper attempts to strengthen the accountability aspect of normative stakeholder theory with a more robust notion of stakeholder engagement derived from the concept of good faith. Specifically, it draws from the labor relations field to argue that altered power dynamics are essential underpinnings of a viable stakeholder engagement mechanism. After describing the tenets of substantive engagement, the paper draws from the labor relations and commercial law literatures to describe the characteristics of good faith as dialogue, negotiation, transparency, and totality of conduct; explains how they can be adapted and applied to the stakeholder context; and suggests the use of mediation and non-binding arbitration. The paper concludes by addressing anticipated objections and shortcomings and discussing implications for theory and research.**

Back to Peter:

In my own work (FWIW), I’ve drawn from the decision-making literature, framing collaboration as a decision process and the question about “good-faith” as input to a decision, especially when the decision process is a collaborative one (i.e., decision is informed by a collaborative process, as opposed to being made collaboratively).

What I do is ask early about how participants (including the decision-maker(s)) might measure success. And then I split that into several key parts because sometimes success can be defined in an inappropriate or counter-productive way, like whether a group recommendation is accepted by the decision-maker (positional) as opposed to used by that person (values-driven). Also, there’s the question of whether the input is valued in the sense of informing the decision and whether it’s valued in the sense of having been heard. Both can be important, so speaking to both seems essential.

In practice, what I do is look for ways the deciding official or agency can, first, make it clear that they heard the input, which is similar to active listening. Then I look for ways to make a clear link between what was heard and the pending decision, so the discussion becomes “here’s what I heard” followed by “here’s how your input and participation helped.” And I also then talk about how the decision leads to actions (i.e., implementation) and that there are ways to stay engaged to help implement the action or otherwise pursue those driving values.

International Women’s Day: Women’s Work – Collaboration and Peace-Seeking?

From Boise State Public Radio’s new series https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/podcast/womens-work

When I was working for the Forest Service as the Region 2 Planning Director, one of my favorite parts of the job was reviewing the Regional Forester’s Honor Awards. Awardees, both internal and external, came from all over the Region; the entertainment was superb (Dave Steinke videos) and a good time was had by all. It reminded me of Mr. Fezziwig’s ball from The Christmas Carol.

If we read many media reports, they focus on the problems and not the successes. Each one of the awardees deserved their own news coverage, and maybe some of the local papers did cover them. The larger media… not so much. Anyway, I remember a particular time awardees with The Nature Conservancy, something to do with the BFF and/or prairie dogs and ranchers I think in South Dakota, came to our morning meeting. It struck me what one of the folks (a woman) said, “we’re not enemies, we all want to do the right thing.”

I wondered at the time whether there was something about our biology, family experiences, or the broader culture (or the interaction of those factors), that makes women more likely to engage in peace-seeking and relationship-building, and being able to see potential middle ground.  Possibly struggling within your own group/discipline for recognition might make you feel less more inclined to question and less inclined to toe the group/discipline line. Or if we’re not likely to ever make it to the decision-making level, we have less to lose by being outliers.  I think of free thinkers like Tisha Schuller and Patty Limerick here in Colorado, and Susan Jane Brown in Oregon.  Or Judith Curry, or Bari Weiss in the broader world.  But perhaps those are older women’s experiences of non-inclusion and those have changed drastically in the past 20 years.  Sadly, it does not appear so in the science biz. Example, this 2019 issue of Lancet.

That is certainly not to say that all women are one way and all men are another, like anything else, there’s a broad range within each group. Still, there is a broad range of literature in a variety of fields from the biological to the anthropological to foreign policy studies, that does describe differences. For example, from the Council on Foreign Relations:

A growing body of research suggests that standard peace and security processes routinely overlook a critical strategy that could reduce conflict and advance stability: the inclusion of women. Evidence indicates that women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution advances security interests. One study found that substantial inclusion of women and civil society groups in a peace negotiation makes the resulting agreement 64 percent less likely to fail and, according to another study, 35 percent more likely to last at least fifteen years. Several analyses suggest also that higher levels of gender equality are associated with a lower propensity for conflict, both between and within states. Despite growing international recognition of women’s role in security, their representation in peace and security processes has lagged.

My observation is that women in our neck of the environmental conflict woods are well represented in the partnership and collaboration world. Perhaps as the stakes get higher, less so, although that would be interesting for researchers to examine further.  Does anyone know of researchers looking into this?  This Harvard study is also interesting and possibly worthy of discussion- it’s about males potentially having more post-conflict affiliation. How or does that play out in our world?

And of course we’ve previously posted on gender as related to litigation:
Litigation and Mediation: Exploring the Gendering of Touchy-Feely Options

In 2013, Laura van Riper published this article in Rangelands. There’s a pdf available that I think you can access here. If not, let me know.

On the Ground
• In recent years women have become more visible as leaders of collaborative range management in the western United States. Drawing on the experiences of four such women, gender aspects of leadership and community activism are explored.

• The four women leaders consider their efforts as “nothing special” and “business as usual”; gender considerations are not prominent in how they view their success.

• Personality traits are important determinants of exceptional leadership. Although such traits are found in both men and women, there may be cases where the more feminine attributes that emphasize peacemaking, community welfare, networking, and consensus building facilitate the management of complex problems.

• Collaborative leadership is vital for rangeland management. Recruiting and training such leaders should focus on identifying those with appropriate personality traits and aptitudes—regardless of gender—and providing them with the tools, skills, and support networks for success. The four successful women ranchers described here give us tangible models to replicate.

Thoughts? Experiences?

More Discussion Topics from Sam Evan’s Piece on The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision

Reflecting both on Sam Evan’s piece and the associated comments, I’d like to pull out some additional observations of his for further discussion. This is the first of two posts.

First, I’d like to point out that I’m interested in posting thoughts of anyone who experienced the 2012 Rule process, either as a stakeholder or as an employee (this perhaps would be difficult even with anonymity for current employees, so perhaps a recent retiree).  Sam was kind enough to offer this in response to a protracted campaign (years of harassment?) by me, but others are also welcome to submit.

Then, on to my thoughts.

TSW readers well know that I am not a fan of the abstraction “ecological integrity”.  Nor NRV, for that matter.  But how do people actually work through these abstract concepts in real (or at least planning) life?
So I was pleasantly surprised to find that Sam thinks (1)

First, and crucially, the Plan does provide detailed, well-supported desired conditions for each ecological community, or “ecozone.” Plan at 54–64. These reference conditions are grounded in the best available science and provide unifying direction for future management. Each set of “key ecosystem characteristics” describes characteristic species composition from the canopy to the forest floor, plus characteristic disturbance patterns and structure.

 
I would have been concerned about “how do we know what the landscape was like prior to the reduction in population/removal of Native Americans?” How can we possibly get Vegetation Desired Condition targets that are pre-Native American influence, or is our goal to emulate their activities? I also think about the American Chestnut, not coming back in the foreseeable future. Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they (the FS) apparently figured this out and the partner group agreed.

Sam also says “Still, much of the landscape is recovering well: pockets of old growth, disturbance-sensitive species, and backcountry areas large enough to allow for natural disturbance processes to resume.” That would be “natural disturbance processes subject to invasive diseases and insects, and climate change” so perhaps more clear would be “disturbance processes without local human intervention.”

(2) There is a tension between the existence of a “big blanket” suitable timber base, and the assumption that the forest will plan projects on all the acres in the suitable base. For example, Sam says “On average, therefore, 20% of harvests proposed under the new Plan are guaranteed to generate conflict” and what really happens on the landscape. Another example is “even-aged harvest is scheduled on a whopping 58% of the landscape.” See, I don’t interpret acres in the suitable timber base as being “scheduled”.. But that’s based on the model in my head of how this works (based on my own observations). To me, suitable acres are a big blanket. When FS folks decide where to put a sale, they use all kinds of different factors to decide where to put it… including where it will be less contentious. I don’t recall any forest (and for sure I don’t know them all) where everything in the suitable base was actually entered for timber management.

I don’t know what the suitable base was under the previous plan, but Sam says the forests were actually harvesting 750 acres per year. Now I don’t know if my numbers are right so please check but I added up the two forests’ acreages and got 1,044,000 million acres. At 750 acres per year, for a 30 year plan, 30 years or 22,500 acres and 2% of the Forests. At that rate, they would hit 2% rather than all 58% of the suitable.

(3) Which leads us to the issue of Post Plan Prioritization. Once you have the blanket (suitable base) where does the FS actually propose projects? It seems to me that Sam is arguing for more “Post Plan Project Prioritization” PPPP in the Plan itself. But there are other approaches that might work, like the less formalized “Zones of Agreement” approach that occur elsewhere. Actually, it sounds like it occurred here too, so the question is how formalized should it be? It seems like the other Zones of Agreement are more like a living process than a codified one. So this is a topic for discussion.. advantages and disadvantages or more or less codified PPPP?

(4) I also see both “Adaptive management “triggers” to gauge whether the Forests have the capacity to mitigate negative impacts before moving to stretch goals” and A “pacing” mechanism to ensure that high-consensus restoration occurs alongside scheduled harvest” as sub-plan level sideboards of a kind that are not exactly found in the 2012 Rule. The Rule says to monitor anyway, so why develop triggers in advance? Maybe those make more sense as an ongoing dialogue among partners and the Forest than a codification for likely to be thirty years?

But those are enough discussion points for now… next post will be on Sam’s more general observations about the 2012 Rule.

Better intentions; fewer commitments :The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision: TSW Exclusive by Sam Evans

I’ve been wanting to hear from stakeholders involved with 2012 planning processes.  Many thanks to Sam Evans for taking the time to share his experiences.  I’m sure this will lead to a great discussion!  In addition to the specifics of this plan, we can reflect on the overall context of the 2102 Rule, as Sam says  “This is also a make-or-break moment for the planning rule. Ten years in, there are no more excuses. The rule is not in transition any more. What the rule means here, now, is what it really means.”

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

Better intentions; fewer commitments
The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision by Sam Evans

As the 2012 planning rule approaches its tenth birthday, another early-adopter is finally nearing the finish line. What does the Nantahala-Pisgah planning process tell us about whether we’re realizing the planning rule’s potential? Here’s a short history of a long process.

Black Mountains, Pisgah National Forest

Background

The contiguous Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in western North Carolina are the heart of the Southern Appalachian mountains. Managed as a single administrative unit, these forests are the third most visited in the National Forest System, and the most visited without a ski resort. The forests here are marvelously diverse and bewilderingly complex. A short walk can take you, ecologically speaking, the entire length of the Appalachian Trail, which incidentally passes through the area on its way from Georgia to Maine.

Ecosystems repeat in small patches, with more variation and texture than stanzas in a Coltrane improvisation. A few acres here and there, riffing across the landscape. Dry, fire-adapted forests intermingle with moist Appalachian coves, which are among the most diverse ecosystems outside the tropics.

Those moist and productive cove forests also grow valuable sawtimber. And, like other productive forests with big trees, they have tempted mismanagement and abuse. The Forests have been through at least two periods of unsustainable logging, once before Forest Service acquisition, at the turn of the 20th century, and another after, in the 1980s. There is plenty of work needed to restore degraded forests’ composition, structure, and processes. Still, much of the landscape is recovering well: pockets of old growth, disturbance-sensitive species, and backcountry areas large enough to allow for natural disturbance processes to resume.

These remnant and recovering conservation values have been a source of conflict. Much more often than not, projects have created a zero-sum choice between harvest and environmental protection. The Forests’ first plan, adopted in 1987 at the height of the timber wars, was remanded by the Chief before the ink was dry in response to protests to end rampant clearcutting and protect old growth.

The 1994 amended plan fared little better. Without public support for timber production, the agency shifted its rationale, pitching rotational harvest as a way to balance age classes for the benefit of wildlife. But the timber program itself didn’t change. Old growth, rare habitats, and unroaded areas were still scheduled for rotational harvest, and the agency dutifully attempted to implement the plan at their expense.

Attempted, but without much success. While the 1994 plan amendment promised up to 3,200 acres of timber harvest annually, the agency has been able to produce just a fraction of this, with recent averages around 750 acres each year. Even at low levels of timber harvest, at least some conservation priority areas have been prescribed for even-aged harvest in most projects under the 1994 plan, and the ensuing conflicts have been a tremendous drag on efficiency, resulting in wasted time and dropped stands. In fact, the Nantahala & Pisgah NFs have the highest rates of project-level attrition of any forest in the ecoregion.

Changes between Project Proposal and Decision – Southern Appalachian NFs (2009–2019)

Fortunately, stakeholders have found better ways to work together. In some Districts, stakeholders built a shared, collaborative understanding of how timber harvest could be used to restore degraded systems. Capable agency leaders reflected their consensus at the project level and found new ways to fund important work that wasn’t always viable on its own. Although not uniformly, things got better.

This story, as unique as it felt to us locally, was happening in similar ways in different places across the country. Stakeholders were finding ways to transcend conflict. It was the right time to unveil the new planning rule, which sought to build on the insights earned in local laboratories: ecological restoration is a unifying goal, and consensus is the surest way to identify the highest priority restoration work.

The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan

Local stakeholders were so excited to put the planning rule into practice that they formed a planning collaborative in 2012, well before the agency kicked off its own process with a 2014 Assessment. While the process has not been without hiccups, the Nantahala Pisgah Forest Partnership has generated comments and recommendations with full consensus at each major step of the process including detailed recommendations on the Draft Plan in 2020. Full disclosure: I am proud to be a member of the Partnership, but I am speaking here only for myself.

The Partnership’s agreements cover every major issue from recreation to timber to recreation to wildlife habitat to wilderness. Without taking away from the importance of other issues, my focus here is on the ecological, social, and economic issues orbiting the Forests’ timber harvest program. The “where, how, and why” of logging were subjects of intense debate and compromise in the collaborative setting. The agency likewise spent most of its attention on goals that could be achieved through use of timber harvest.

The Partnership’s agreements were meant to be taken as a whole, and they recognized that management levels could increase considerably while also improving ecological outcomes if the Forest Service would commit to do the right kinds of things in the right places and provide safeguards for disturbance-sensitive ecological values.

The Final Plan, released in late January, purports to hit those targets:

Unlike the previous plan that framed activities in terms of outputs and traditional standards and guidelines, the revised plan developed desired conditions for each ecological community. By using ecological communities, projects will consider needs across a broader landscape, better enabling an increase in pace and scale of restoration.

Reader’s Guide at 5. The plan attributes these ostensible improvements to collaborative input, noting that collaborative stakeholders “created innovative approaches and processes” that “helped to create a more fully implementable plan.” FEIS App’x H at 12.

If only the plan content lived up to those intentions.

 Does the Plan prioritize ecological restoration?

First, and crucially, the Plan does provide detailed, well-supported desired conditions for each ecological community, or “ecozone.” Plan at 54–64. These reference conditions are grounded in the best available science and provide unifying direction for future management. Each set of “key ecosystem characteristics” describes characteristic species composition from the canopy to the forest floor, plus characteristic disturbance patterns and structure. They explain, for example, that within moist, productive ecozones, disturbance is dominated by gap-phase dynamics, which produce a pattern of small gaps and fine-scale diversity. Dry forests, on the other hand, should have larger patches and relatively more young and open forest conditions. These key ecosystem characteristics, moreover, are essential to maintain and restore wildlife diversity: some species need small gaps within mature forests, while others need larger patches. Plan at 64; FEIS App’x D at 12. The Forest Service got the reference conditions absolutely right.

After painstakingly describing the key ecosystem characteristics for each ecozone, however, the Plan disclaims any requirement to move toward these desired conditions. The mantra is repeated throughout the planning documents: Projects may “locally deviate from the [natural range of variation]” in order to balance age classes at the forest-wide scale. Record of Decision (ROD) at 66. That’s because the Plan’s default tool is scheduled, even-aged harvest. Plan at 91, TIM-DC-06 (describing scheduled timber program). This type of harvest will occur even in ecozones where large-patch early seral habitat is uncommon under ecological reference conditions. While the Plan sets a modest target for creation of open forest conditions in fire-suppressed, dry forests, it anticipates that the overwhelming bulk of harvest will be even-aged and located in mesic systems. FEIS App’x D at 46-49 (modeling the anticipated timber sale program).

This program of work would not restore characteristic, fine-scale structural diversity in ecozones where it is needed. Indeed, the agency acknowledges that fine-scale disturbance processes aren’t currently happening at natural rates because the forests are in an even-aged condition due to past logging. ROD at 66. A mostly-even-aged harvest program would keep the forest on a treadmill that precludes reaching ecozone desired conditions for structure. The Plan would also allow the continued degradation of species composition caused by even-aged harvest where it is ecologically inappropriate. See FEIS at 3-160 (acknowledging that “less is known about the silvics and reestablishment” of characteristic species in cove ecozones).

The planning team does express an intention to do better work than the Plan’s bare minima. The Plan lists a few “management approaches” to address conditions where there is general support that timber harvest will improve species composition and structural diversity at relevant scales. Plan at 71-72. As recent projects demonstrate, however, intentions aren’t binding at the project level. Neither are management approaches. Targeted, site-specific restoration is an explicit goal only in the “Ecological Interest Area,” which covers 2.1% of the landscape. ROD at 56. Meanwhile, even-aged harvest is scheduled on a whopping 58% of the landscape.

Of the “suitable” management areas, moreover, over 100,000 acres (about 20%) are existing old growth, rare habitats, and wilderness inventory areas that have already been mapped by NGOs, the state, and the Forest Service, respectively. On average, therefore, 20% of harvests proposed under the new Plan are guaranteed to generate conflict—a depressing reminder of the 20% attrition rate that has dogged the old plan. When projects are developed in these areas, there are no standards or guidelines protecting their unique values. Whether to harvest old growth is left entirely to the District Ranger. State-delineated rare habitats can be harvested after “coordination” with no strings attached. Unroaded areas may be roaded without limitation. As in the old plan, conflict is the only backstop to prevent harm to these values.

The Forests argue that even-aged harvest counts as “structural restoration” anywhere it occurs, including areas with high conservation value, because it will restore young forest conditions at the landscape scale. But the Forests did not define restoration at the landscape scale; they correctly recognized that restoration means different things in different ecozones, which is why the Plan sets desired conditions at the ecozone scale. Yes, young forest is an important component of structural diversity, but the characteristic patch size and distribution of young forest is different in each ecological system, and those differences matter to the wildlife associated with each system. Ecological restoration in the Southern Appalachians simply cannot be reduced to “balancing age classes” at the landscape scale.

Why would the Forests set desired conditions for its ecozones but then forecast that it will ignore them in project after project? According to the agency, targeted, site-specific restoration actions to restore key ecosystem characteristics for ecological communities would be too expensive. Without scheduled harvest, “there would not be enough financial resources” to execute a self-sustaining timber sale program. ROD at 56. Timber receipts. Economic efficiency. The philosophy of the 1982 Rule lives on.

To sum up, the Forests argue they cannot restore characteristic species composition and structure at the desired levels with current budgets, so they conclude they must take actions that individually will not contribute to NRV, and when added together will be inconsistent with NRV. That is not how the planning rule works. The planning rule requires each planning unit to maintain and restore NRV, 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.8(a)(1); 219.19, and to ensure that its objectives are within its fiscal capability, id. § 219.1(g).

Failing to identify types and levels of restoration work that can be achieved with expected budgets isn’t just bad planning; it also creates a self-defeating cycle. Without clear price signals, agency higher-ups (much less Congressional appropriators) will not know how much funding is needed to truly restore our forests. By conflating ecological restoration with scheduled timber harvest, a local Forest may preserve some future flexibility to continue with a timber sale program even when budgets are low, but it undermines its own ability to seek and justify the budgets it needs to do the most important work.

This is not to say that there is no room for timber production on the Nantahala-Pisgah, or that the Forests must set trivially small objectives that do not meet economic or social needs. The Partnership offered consensus recommendations that would have allowed the Forest Service to grow its timber program while also meeting its ecological restoration obligations. Did any of that work make it into the Plan?

 

Does the Plan reflect collaborative input?

The Partnership reached consensus and provided detailed input at every major checkpoint of plan development, covering the full range of issues from land allocation to wilderness recommendation to plan components. Boiled down, our recommendations for vegetation management included:

Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership Recommendations

Increased levels of timber harvest at current budget levels

 

paired withProtections for steep slopes and streams, old growth, areas with high diversity, and rare habitats

 

“Tiered objectives” (Stretch goals) to allow the Forests to increase levels of timber harvest even further if additional resources are availablepaired withAdaptive management “triggers” to gauge whether the Forests have the capacity to mitigate negative impacts before moving to stretch goals

 

Scheduled timber production on a suitable base that excludes areas known to have high potential for conflict

 

paired withWilderness recommendations that would be supported for designation after meeting benchmarks for success in plan implementation

 

An unsuitable management area that allows for the use of all appropriate tools, including timber harvest and road construction, to accomplish ecological restoration based on site-specific needs

 

paired withBackcountry management in which restoration would occur primarily by use of natural disturbance and prescribed fire
A high degree of flexibility to develop stand-level prescriptions

 

paired withA “pacing” mechanism to ensure that high-consensus restoration occurs alongside scheduled harvest

 

In short, the Partnership asked the agency to increase harvest levels and improve ecological outcomes—to “do more, better work.” To succeed with current budgets, we knew that we needed to avoid unnecessary conflict. Each of the recommendations was therefore calibrated to proactively address tensions that would otherwise create project-level friction.

For example, all members supported levels of harvest that are beyond the Forest Service’s current capacity, provided that increasing harvest levels does not exacerbate the road maintenance backlog (a proxy for risk to water quality) and the spread of non-native invasive plants. So, we proposed “tiered objectives,” or stretch goals, which were accompanied by adaptive management triggers (e.g., reduction of the road maintenance backlog, treatments levels for invasive plants). When we can demonstrate that we can keep up with the work needed to mitigate negative impacts at Tier 1, then we know we are within our fiscal capability to stretch to Tier 2.

As another example, some members strongly felt that project-level flexibility was essential to meet restoration needs in viable timber sales, but other members were worried that commercial realities would lead to too much even-aged harvest in the wrong ecozones, like coves. These are inherently plan-level questions: how much is too much? Failing to answer those kinds of questions in the plan will create the conditions for sustained conflict at the project level. To avoid that, we proposed a pacing mechanism. We asked the Forest Service to track types of harvest and ensure that at least half of the total is in one of several priority treatment types—common conditions where timber harvest (including commercial harvest) can maintain or improve stand-level composition or function.

These were innovations we believed would not only solve local problems, but might also be useful for other forests with similar challenges. Indeed, some kind of pacing mechanism is essential to meet the goals of the 2012 rule. Ecological restoration does not have a cookie-cutter solution. It requires some measure of flexibility to do the right things at the project level, but it also requires some mechanism to ensure that we’re doing them in the right proportions in the right places in the longer term.

Unfortunately, the Forests rejected these carefully balanced recommendations. They agreed to increase timber harvest levels, but declined to include any pacing mechanism to ensure that the types and proportions of harvest would restore ecological integrity. They adopted tiered objectives, but they declined to adopt the triggers needed to determine when we are ready to move to the more ambitious targets. They emphasized scheduled timber harvest, but declined to limit it to areas without high potential for conflict. They created an ecological restoration management area but declined to put any substantial acreage in it, instead enlarging the suitable base.

Despite these choices, it’s hard to argue that the planning team has not been committed to public process. At stakeholders’ request, the DEIS alternatives were deliberately calibrated to keep stakeholders from retreating to their corners. During plan revision, planners attended dozens of meetings. Specialists were generous with their time and expertise. And the agency clearly expects the collaborative process to continue into implementation. Plan at 25.

Yet the Forest Service did not roll up its sleeves and actively engage in the process of developing collaborative solutions. Agency thinking happened in a black box, with progress revealed only during formal public comment periods. ID Team meetings were closed, and there was minimal dialogue or feedback. With a Plan that describes work far outside the zone of consent, it appears that consensus proposals were not understood or valued. As a result, it is hard to trust that the agency’s commitment to the collaborative process will result in implementation of collaborative outcomes. Indeed, if project-level discretion and collaboration were enough, we wouldn’t need a new plan.

Here’s how things look in hindsight: Dozens of professionals and volunteers spent eight years working to build consensus at the Forest Service’s request. We were asked to put aside past conflicts created by a parade of zero-sum projects and to imagine a different future. We were asked to be ambassadors to our respective communities. And we showed up. We stretched our comfort zones to the limit, and we handed the agency a roadmap for ecological and social sustainability. Meanwhile, the Forest Service was digging a moat around the plan it intended to finalize from the start—a plan that makes our work irrelevant.

 

The 2012 Rule after 10 Years

There you have it. Better intentions; fewer commitments.

I realize that some of you will read that as a good thing. Some will argue that increased agency discretion will result in bigger accomplishments. Others will note that a lack of protective standards will cause greater harm. Still others will hope that, despite a lack of clear plan direction to protect conservation values and restore key ecosystem characteristics, we will find a way forward anyhow. That the relationships, improved understanding, and good intentions formed during the past ten years will help us design successful projects in the next fifteen. (“The real plan is the friends we made along the way!”)

For my part, I cannot believe that the 2012 Rule was intended to fund years-long, expensive processes that don’t produce decisions to solve problems. If we’re simply hoping that we can reach the same compromises again later at the project level, why not reflect them in the Plan now? Why did we accumulate ten years’ worth of analysis and consensus-building only to defer the decisions to the project level, where we can analyze and contest them again and again? These questions, moreover, are bigger than any single plan revision: why should self-respecting stakeholders invest years in future collaborative processes if their collective input can be so dismissively rejected? In the interest of protecting both agency and stakeholder time investments in this planning process and encouraging similar investments in future planning processes, the Forest Service should make decisions now that will reflect consensus and improve efficiency during implementation.

If the Nantahala-Pisgah’s Revised Plan is any indication, we have a long way to go to realize the promise of the 2012 Rule. I continue to believe that the Rule’s innovations—ecological restoration and consensus-building—are the agency’s path to continued relevance, but the 2012 Rule will ultimately be judged by the projects (and, unfortunately, by the conflicts) that it produces. Based on our local experience, what is working for the Rule, and what are the challenges?

  • Identifying and ensuring progress toward restoration goals:It is possible to develop broadly supported reference conditions for ecological restoration in distinct ecological systems, even in highly altered eastern forests. There is good scientific information available, much of it developed by partners and agency professionals working together.It is harder to craft plan components that can make meaningful progress toward reference conditions with anticipated budgets. The problem is simple: under an ecological restoration paradigm, the highest-priority work is often the least economical. On the other hand, there is a real potential for increasing budgets in coming years. Although the planning rule’s fiscal capability requirement is important, it should not be a straitjacket forcing planners to choose between (a) trying to justify doing the wrong things because they can pay for themselves and (b) doing nothing at all.Surmounting this problem requires a willingness to innovate beyond the planning rule’s text. Tiered objectives and adaptive management triggers offer a platform to justify additional funding, incentivize partner contributions, and get more done. But doing more is not an end in itself. A pacing mechanism is essential to ensure that the easiest or most commercially viable work does not displace higher priority work or get ahead of mitigation needs. Both of these innovations can be incorporated into traditional plan components.

    Increasing the pace and scale of ecological restoration also requires more thoughtful and efficient land allocations. The Forest Service must ensure that known conservation assets are not mapped into suitable management areas, where plan-level acreage and volume goals take priority over local values by default. Such allocations inevitably will result in continued project-level conflict and attrition. Conflict as a sideboard for conservation values can only “work” at low levels of harvest; it will not allow us to scale up without damaging ecological values and the public trust.

  • Supporting, participating in, and reflecting collaborative work:The Forest Service has learned a great deal about how to create opportunities for collaboration and to provide support to its stakeholders with information and resources. This was an important goal of the planning rule, and the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs have taken it seriously.The agency “black box,” however, remains a major obstacle to effective collaboration. When planners believe they know the right solution already, they are likely to shield the messy parts of the process from scrutiny. Collaboration works best, however, when agency staff are willing to work toward solutions as participants. The agency should communicate better about its own institutional needs and limitations to support consensus-building around new approaches that will work for partners and the agency alike.But it is essential that planners understand they need the public’s help to find the right answer, and they must be willing to reflect consensus in the plan itself—to share decision space. While some forests and districts have taken the plunge, there remain pockets of institutional resistance. Collaborative stakeholders will often ask for guardrails to ensure future actions stay within the zone of consent, and those guardrails can be at odds with agency preferences for greater discretion. Agency leaders must learn that setting limits during the planning process isn’t at odds with agency discretion but is instead an efficient way to exercise agency discretion. Ultimately, collaborative planning must offer stakeholders more than a request to trust its intentions. Trust requires accountability.

The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan is caught in the middle between what the agency is getting right and the lessons it has yet to learn. It’s optimistic but unfinished. Fortunately, there is still time to get it right. This plan is too important to give up on yet—both for the Nantahala-Pisgah and as a model for other forests that are trying to overcome histories of conflict.

This is also a make-or-break moment for the planning rule. Ten years in, there are no more excuses. The rule is not in transition any more. What the rule means here, now, is what it really means. Can the agency commit to work for better outcomes, build trust, and demonstrate its relevance to a public that is increasingly worried about the climate and biodiversity crises? Or will it teach the public that restoration is just another euphemism for business as usual? The next few months will tell.

Custer Gallatin Plan Released January 28

Custer Gallatin National Forest spans 400 miles east to west. GRAPHIC COURTESY OF CUSTER GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST/USDA FOREST SERVICE

 

I may have missed it, but was there already a post on the Custer-Gallatin plan?  This news story  from Explore Big Sky talks about it, and about how collaboration on the plan worked. And it only took six years, which is good for a complex plan.

“In the first stages of this, we had a bunch of people involved in these meetings, who really honestly never had any intent of collaborating on anything,” said Big Sky resident Steve Johnson. “There were significant factions on both extreme ends of, you know, it’s my way or no way.”

Johnson has been involved in the process since early conversations about a decade ago. At a certain point, he said, it became clear that a collaborative agreement wasn’t going to happen.

In the interest of providing cohesive feedback to CGNF, Johnson and other individuals from the surrounding area formed the Gallatin Forest Partnership in 2016 and submitted the final Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement to the forest service in 2018. Johnson said that agreement became the basis for the plan the forest service ultimately produced.

Encompassing more than 3 million acres in southern Montana and the northwestern corner of South Dakota, CGNF is a highly diverse landscape ecologically, socially, economically, and culturally. GRAPHIC BY ME BROWN

The agreement details a future for the Gallatin and Madison Ranges that protects wildlife, clean water, wilderness and recreation opportunities through recommended protections and wildlife management areas. Specifically, the document incorporates new land protections that will help guard clean water and ensure safe passage for wildlife while maintaining existing recreational opportunities and seeking to limit new development.

“[The partners] came to the table with a spirit of ‘let’s work something out’ and we did,” Johnson said in a Feb. 7 interview. “I’m tremendously proud to have been a part of that. And given what’s going on in the country these days, anything that actually comes to an agreement amongst disparate parties is sort of a miracle.”

Leuschen-Lonergan explained that the recommended wilderness and type of land allocations drew some of the most diverse perspectives and sparked the most disagreements. The balance of sustainability and preserving public access struck by the plan was informed by focusing on the common ground in the extensive public comment received by the forest.

“It was a pretty lengthy process, and we’re very thankful and fortunate to have people … across the Custer Gallatin, all seven districts, that really care about and are passionate about these public lands and want to be involved in the process,” she told EBS. “Because of that, we were able to build a more … inclusive and robust plan that as we move forward for the next 10 to 15 years, incorporates a lot of people’s thoughts and perspectives and is a better plan because of the involvement that we had.”

Wyoming’s fractious by nature? Experience tells me otherwise

Dr. Jessica Western, standing, guides the 30-plus members of the Chronic Wasting Disease Working Group through crafting final recommendations in September 2019. (Katie Klingsporn/WyoFile)

I really liked this op-ed  by Dr. Jessica Western of the University of Wyoming published in WyoFile.

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

We who work in the field of conflict resolution have seen this process work repeatedly. In my 30 years of experience, recent examples include the Wyoming Game and Fish Department tackling the “wicked” (complex and controversial) topic of chronic wasting disease, Wyoming State Parks and Cultural Resources convening an Outdoor Recreation Taskforce that resulted in numerous recommendations and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations taking on collaborative problem-solving initiatives.

How do we make these collaboration processes as successful as possible? I often hear past “failures” cited as “evidence” that collaborative problem solving doesn’t work. We’ve had our struggles, yet in every case, having the conversation was laudable.

For example, the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative gave interested parties a chance to learn the level of agreement that can be reached regarding Wilderness Study Areas.  In some cases we learned that the available common ground is considerable, in others not. This effort reminds us that when a topic is very controversial, it can be better to frame it as “let’s explore the topic and related interests” first. If participants find such a learning process to be productive, then they can progress into agreement-making.

Another reason I’ve heard a process termed “unsuccessful” or worse, a “sham” is that the decision had already been made. In other words, the process was to meet the requirement of public engagement and did not influence the decision one way or another. No disagreement there: that is a sham process. Successful collaborative problem solving is based on the acronym FOTE: full, open and transparent exchange. An insincere public-engagement effort is not that. Fortunately, I hardly ever feel this is the case in Wyoming.

Collaborative process regarding the Teton Range bighorn sheep herd, convened by the Teton Range Bighorn Sheep Working Group. This resulted in the Teton Range Bighorn Sheep and Winter Recreation Strategy. (Jessica Western)

A process will founder with positional participants, i.e. when stakeholders have an outcome in mind and cannot/will not engage in a deliberation based on others’ interests or explore the reasons behind positions. And if participants can find a better alternative and find their needs met outside the collaborative process, this can also render the effort moot.

One component of Wyoming’s collaborative capacity is that we have strong conflict resolution expertise, including in the fields of natural resources, education and community health. Colleagues at the Ruckelshaus have worked with outdoor recreation collaboratives, facilitated the Wyoming Renewable Energy Siting Collaborative and the Pole Mountain Gateways project with the US Forest Service. There is more expertise in Jackson, Cody, Cheyenne, Gillette and other parts of Wyoming. These consultants and the Ruckelshaus Institute also offer a variety of training and education opportunities in collaborative skills and leadership.

Our federal land management partners are becoming increasingly adept at collaborative problem-solving. Challenges remain, however. Many of us believe federal agency leaders need to do more to make collaboration the way of doing business across all federal agencies. Nevertheless, our federal partners are another resource to value and use in collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, numerous state agencies and non-governmental organizations have demonstrated their value as excellent partners in collaborative processes.

Ultimately, Wyoming people are our biggest asset. They have clearly demonstrated willingness and ability to do the hard work to explore complex issues and find solutions. Now is the time to recognize this capacity, invest in it and use it. Now that the pandemic is subsiding, let’s get ready to go back into the room and work on our future together.

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

CFLRP Advisory Committee Looking for Members

FWIW I think it’s pronounced C Flurp with the accent on the C, but I could be wrong.. if so, please let me know in comments.
***********************
The USDA Forest Service has announced a call for nominations for individuals to serve on the CFLRP Federal Advisory Committee, charged with evaluating CFLRP proposals and providing recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture on proposal selection. Please see the Federal Register Notice for process and submission details – the announcement was posted on February 3 and will be open for 30 days.
Congress created CFLRP in 2009 to invest in landscape-scale restoration to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, enhance forest health, and support rural economies. CFLRP project proposals are developed collaboratively with USDA Forest Service staff and partners and are selected through a competitive process. Program funding supports up to 50% of the costs of implementing and monitoring the proposal on National Forest System lands.
 
What does the CFLRP Advisory Committee do?
  • The purpose of the Committee is to evaluate, support, and provide recommendations on each nominated CFLRP project to the Secretary of Agriculture for final selections. It is solely advisory in nature.
  • To this end, the advisory Committee is required to meet annually and may meet as often as is necessary to review and evaluate CFLRP proposals and make recommendations.
 
Who can serve on CFLRP Advisory Committee?
  • The Committee consists of officials from academia; tribal, state, county, or similar agencies; non-government organizations; and related industries. Committee membership is fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented.
  • Committee members will be appointed based on their expertise and knowledge in the following areas:
  • Ecological restoration,
  • Fire ecology,
  • Fire management,
  • Rural economic development,
  • Strategies for ecological adaptation to climate change,
  • Fish and wildlife ecology, and/or
  • Woody biomass and small-diameter tree utilization
Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, will be followed. Individuals who may be directly involved in developing a future CFLRP proposal are advised not to apply due to potential conflicts of interest.
What else do I need to know?
  • Committee members will be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture.
  • Members serve without compensation, but with reimbursement of travel expenses for any in-person travel.
  • Committee members will be subject to appropriate conflict of interest statutes and standards of ethical conduct as well as a Financial Disclosure Report.
  • This Committee will expire in 2 years from the date of filing unless renewed.
  • Please see the CFLRP Advisory Committee webpage for additional details, including current Committee members.
 
How can I apply?
 
Application packets and any additional questions may be emailed to Lindsay Buchanan, CFLR Program Coordinator at [email protected].

Legislation With Time Limit to Streamline FACA Approvals?

 

Black Hills Federal Advisory Committee 2014

 

Talking about the Black Hills reminded me of their FACA Committee, and this history from their website.

In 2001, then-Senator Tom Daschle hosted a Forest Summit in Rapid City that drew a crowd of over 600 people to air their views on how the national forest is currently being managed. One of the concepts discussed was the formation of a “council” of diverse interests that would work cooperatively to provide advice and recommendations regarding national forest management. In the months following the Summit, it became clear that the public supported this concept and was ready to participate. In response, Supervisor John Twiss made the decision to establish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board. The Board was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA).

Right now, as I understand, the Black Hills folks are trying to get their FACA committee members approved, having been successful at getting their charter approved.  For those who haven’t had the pleasure of working with the Federal Advisory Committee process at USDA, the charters need to be re-upped every two years, but you can’t start the process for approving nominations until the charter is approved.  Each of these processes goes into a mysterious Department black hole (this seems to be regardless of Administration) so that by the time your members get approved, it’s almost time to start the charter approval process again. Unless they didn’t approve the nominees for two years and the charter expired and you have to start over. With the approval of a new charter, which you wait on to be approved before you can send in the nominations.

So this can be frustrating for everyone involved.  But… in reading some recent legislation, I thought I had seen (I think it was for RACs possibly) that if the Department didn’t respond in 30 days, the individuals were considered to have been appointed.  I went through the Infrastructure Bill and couldn’t find it, but that’s not to say that it isn’t there somewhere.

I wonder if all departments have this much trouble, and whether there’s anything to be done, either by USDA or by legislation – to ensure that Advisory Committees are helped to exist rather than hindered. Or just stop them if they’re not useful.

When President Trump tried to reduce the number of advisory committees, he was roundly thrashed in the media. But for decades folks have tolerated the presence of glacial bureaucratic procedures interfering with their function (at least at USDA).  As one of my colleagues used to say, “pick a lane, folks!”