Future (Imagining our Mutual)

Coquelle Trails: Scientific Transparency & Public Lands Management

by
"Volunteers On the March" (Glisan 1874: 293)
“Volunteers On the March” (Glisan 1874: 293)

Earlier this week I gave a 60-minute talk to a meeting of the Alsea Watershed Council, my “home group,” where I have been giving presentations every few years since they first formed in the 1980s. The audience was a little smaller than usual, but all of the old-timers were there and Elmer Ostling’s wife had baked delicious cinnamon rolls for everyone.

The theme of my talk was to discuss scientific and political “transparency” in this age of Internet communications – and to use the recently completed website report, Oregon Websites and Watershed Project’s (ORWW) “Coquelle Trails,” as a model and framework for the discussion. The Coquelle Trails project covered more than 1,400,000-acres in southwest Oregon, including sizable portions of BLM and USFS lands and hundreds of thousands of acres of marbled murrelet, spotted owl, coho, California condor, wolf, and elk habitat. PowerPoint and PDF versions of the presentation have been put online here:

www.NWMapsCo.com/ZybachB/Presentations/2010-2013/index.html#20130221

The original 2-page Press Release for Coquelle Trails was used as a handout. The online version of the handout can be found here:

www.ORWW.org/Coquelle_Trails/Press_Release_20130107.html

The discussion was arranged in four parts: 1) a proposed definition of “scientific and political transparency” — at least as it should apply to taxpayer-funded research — for the 21st century; 2) a demonstration of how inexpensive and easy it is to produce baseline data in modern digital formats, by using the Coquelle Trails’ predictive map construction and field verification methodology as an illustration; 3) a brief overview of how the Coquelle Trails’ historical datasets and current findings were formatted for Internet access by using the same standards developed by ORWW with Siletz School 2nd-Grade students 15 years ago; and 4) basic conclusions regarding current opportunities and needs to create better trust and transparency between federal land management agencies and local communities via enhanced research methods and internet communications.

After a brief introduction and background regarding the focus of my talk and the reference materials we would be using, we began with the proposed definition for “Scientific (& Political) Transparency: 2013,” which was also outlined in four parts:

1. Plain English

Acronyms + Jargon + Latin + Metrics x Statistics = Total Obfuscation

Doug Fir vs. Doug-fir vs. PsMe

TMDL vs. turbidity vs. muddy water

2. Research Methodology

A. All taxpayer-funded work is documented.

B. All documentation is made readily available via public websites.

C. Most work is subject to Independent Peer Review.

D. All peer reviews and resulting discussions are made publicly available.

3. Direct Access to all taxpayer-funded research, meetings, reports, correspondence, political decisions, etc.

4. Stable, well-designed (dependable, comprehensive & “easy to use”) Websites: ORWW Coquelle Trails as a model.

The opening discussion of Plain English was illustrated with a philosophical approach as to how Latin had been used to create distance between the Messengers of God and the illiterate masses in the Middle Ages, and how that process was still being used today – via government acronyms, professional jargon, metrics, and obscure statistics (and Latin) – to create distance between government agencies and the public; between the agencies themselves; and even between different generations of scientists within the same disciplines.

I used personal examples of the “evolution” of Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia) to Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) to PsMe (“Piz-Me”) in the agencies and classrooms during the past 60 years – while everyone in town and at the sawmills continued to call it “Doug Fir.” The similar history of TMDL – and why that acronym is not a good fit to discuss with current grade school and high school students – was another example. Same with metrics: the USFS and BLM are US agencies. Our standard of measure, used by all taxpayers, is the English system (chains, links, feet, miles, and acres) — why then do agency personnel try and talk and write in terms of hectares and kilometers in official reports and public presentations (rhetorical question)?

The second part of the discussion involved a series of slides showing how traditional archival research methods and modern technology were used during the Coquelle Trails project to achieve desired results. This was, essentially, a summary of the methodology as described and illustrated by the online report:

www.ORWW.org/Coquelle_Trails/Methodology/

Part three of the discussion used a series of slides showing how ORWW has continued to use the same methods and formats developed with Siletz 2nd-Graders in 1998 to present Coquelle Trails research datasets, findings, and conclusions to the present day:

www.ORWW.org/PEAS/SZDay/SalmonCycle/

www.ORWW.org/Coquelle_Trails/Maps_1856-2012

The point was made – pointedly – that government websites to the present time continue to be far less stable, far less comprehensive, and much more difficult to navigate than methods developed by grade-schoolers during the past century – during the very infancy of the Internet. Also, that the more accessible and reliable design was developed and has been expanded and maintained by a tiny non-profit in Philomath, Oregon, entirely funded by local residents, businesses, and organizations – and no federal dollars. And that those works have been continuously available and online for more than 16 years (compare to the life of an average government link or URL).

Which brought us to the Conclusions, also listed in four parts:

Conclusions: How Transparency Saves Money & Improves Decision Making

1. The 1976 Paperwork Reduction Act and the 2010 Plain Writing Act already require the use of Plain English by federal agencies. These acts simply need to be enforced.   

2. Modern technology makes automated scanning of documents and GPS-referenced digital photography increasingly cheap and easy. Citizens should insist on such documentation and direct access to all taxpayer-funded research, meetings, etc., affecting local regulations.

3. High-speed Internet communications and the recent proliferation of ipads and smart phones has made universal access to technical information possible, with few limitations to time and location.

4. Increased access to better information is believed to result in improved research, discussion, and decision-making. Stable, well-designed websites make such access possible for almost all citizens, including: students, teachers, scientists, politicians and public resource managers.

So that was my presentation. I would be very interested in other thoughts on this. I think the current lack of transparency in government and in science (and maybe particularly in government-funded science) is doing a great disservice to taxpaying citizens, our voters, and our students and teachers, all of whom deserve clear and complete answers to their questions and requests.

Modern technology and Internet communications have made sharing information more possible, cheaper, and easier than at any other time in history – so why does the government (and its scientists) continue to hide behind secret meetings, foreign languages and measurements, unavailable “findings,” clunky and outdated communications, never-ending acronyms, and other forms of deliberate obfuscation? That’s a rhetorical question with lots of answers, but the bottom line is that there is really no excuse for allowing this type of behavior to continue. It’s way too expensive, totally unnecessary, probably unethical, and counterproductive to most legitimate workings of government and of science. In my opinion. I’m interested in the thoughts of others.

Rural Resonance for Deputy Regional Forester in California

by

Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region (5)
Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region (5)
Here’s the link and below is an excerpt:

As long as I work for the agency, the U.S. Forest Service, I want to make a difference. I will personally promise you that. That is what I want to do,” Gyant assured his rapt audience of nearly 400 loggers, mill owners, lumber company executives, truck drivers, equipment sales people and others packed into Fusaro Hall Thursday, Feb. 7, at the Shasta District Fair grounds in Anderson.

“There is an opportunity for us to get proactive and work together. If we work together, we can get out of all of these lawsuits, protect habitat and species and get enough fiber into our mills,” said Gyant, who toured some of the timber harvesting machinery on display just outside prior to arriving at the breakfast.

“I saw all of those pieces of equipment out there that must cost a half-million (dollars). I know that equipment has to be moving. It can’t be sitting idle on somebody’s low-boy (trailer) out there somewhere if you are going to make payments on it, feed your families, pay the mortgage and keep on top of all of your other bills,” added Gyant.

“You see, I get it,” he continued. “I grew up in a small town on a tobacco plantation. We harvested the yellow leaves every day from 6 a.m. until noon, when it started to get too hot to work. But when we got done with the tobacco, we still had to get the hay up to our dairy cows and milk them because cows never do take a vacation,” said Gyant, now a resident of Vallejo.

Gyant described his job as Deputy Regional Forester as “overseeing the agency’s regional budget, managing timber harvests and transportation systems in national forests, protecting soil, water and wildlife resources, handling NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969), tribal relations and litigation as well as risk management” for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“I signed up for the job I am in and I knew before I took it that it would be a difficult one. But I signed up for the simple reason that I want to make a difference. In 10 or 15 years from now, I want to be able to say that I have made a difference and left things better for my kids,” Gyant said.

Winter Reflection

by

It is especially so, in a profession like forestry, that some of us get a chance to reflect on what has happened, and what might happen. Some of us find other ways of being outdoors and enjoying nature. My winter “data collection” involves sampling, organizing and capturing millions of scenic “data points” in a pleasing manner. Sometimes one has an entire winter to look at a problem from a new point of view than they had before. Being more moderate, I keep and cultivate an open mind, welcoming new points of view to scrutinize. Anyone who said that collaboration, consensus and compromise would be easy and painless was lying to you. Like in photography, scientific studies can use composition, depth of field and field of view to adjust what the viewer sees, and doesn’t see. A telephoto lens and a polarizing filter can dramatically affect what you want the viewer to see.

P9099357-web

My young nephew called and invited me to take the extra bed in his Yosemite Lodge room. I hustled to get down there and we enjoyed a nice dinner, after I made Isaac and his friend some potent “Snugglers”. The three of us skied at Badger Pass, with glorious conditions the next day. The last morning, I took them to this secret spot along the Merced River. I never fail to get great pictures at this little-known spot, and I greedily sucked up more than my share of nice shots.

www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware

RPA Assessment Released

by

2010-assessment

Terry Seyden forwarded this link to an article in the Lake County (Calif) news regarding the publication of the RPA Assessment. Here is one in the Santa Barbara Independent.

The article said it was released Tuesday, I couldn’t find anything under USDA press releases, nor Forest Service, but I finally located it on the FS homepage here.

Here is a link to the report. Here is the link to RPA stuff in general.

A comprehensive U.S. Forest Service report released Tuesday examines the ways expanding populations, increased urbanization, and changing land-use patterns could profoundly impact natural resources, including water supplies, nationwide during the next 50 years.

Significantly, the study shows the potential for significant loss of privately-owned forests to development and fragmentation, which could substantially reduce benefits from forests that the public now enjoys including clean water, wildlife habitat, forest products and others.

“We should all be concerned by the projected decline in our nation’s forests and the corresponding loss of the many critical services they provide such as clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, wood products and outdoor recreation,” said Agriculture Under Secretary Harris Sherman.

Sherman said the report offers “a sobering perspective on what is at stake and the need to maintain our commitment to conserve these critical assets.”

U.S Forest Service scientists and partners at universities, non-profits and other agencies found urban and developed land areas in the U.S. will increase 41 percent by 2060.

Forested areas will be most impacted by this growth, with losses ranging from 16 to 34 million acres in the lower 48 states. The study also examines the effect of climate change on forests and the services forests provide.

Most importantly, over the long-term, climate change could have significant effects on water availability, making the US potentially more vulnerable to water shortages, especially in the Southwest and Great Plains.

Population growth in more arid regions will require more drinking water. Recent trends in agricultural irrigation and landscaping techniques also will boost water demands.

“Our nation’s forests and grasslands are facing significant challenges. This assessment strengthens our commitment to accelerate restoration efforts that will improve forest resiliency and conservation of vitally important natural resources,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.

The assessment’s projections are influenced by a set of scenarios with varying assumptions about U.S. population and economic growth, global population and economic growth, global wood energy consumption and U.S. land use change from 2010 to 2060. Using those scenarios, the report forecasts the following key trends:

Forest areas will decline as a result of development, particularly in the South, where population is projected to grow the most;
Timber prices are expected to remain relatively flat;
Rangeland area is expected to continue its slow decline but rangeland productivity is stable with forage sufficient to meet expected livestock grazing demands;
Biodiversity may continue to erode because projected loss of forestland will impact the variety of forest species;
Recreation use is expected to trend upward.

Additionally, the report stresses the need to develop forest and rangeland policies which are flexible enough to be effective under a wide range of future socioeconomic and ecological conditions such as climate change.

UPDATE
Thanks to an alert reader we now have links to 2010 RPA Assessment Frequently Asked Questions 17 Dec 2012

2010 RPA Assessment Talking Points 17 Dec 2012

2010_RPA_Key_Findings_Dec2012

Take a look and see what you think! Predicting the future is hard work..
My one thought is that the USG would save oodles of money by forcing the agencies (at least USGS, Bureau of Reclamation, and now FS) to do one coordinated effort on future water supply and demand. In fact, I think we could save mega-oodles by forcing coordination among agencies on every research topic. One way is just to assign a science agency a topic, and require that all funding for that work go through one agency (and people cooperating with them). There would be a panel which included practitioners reviewing proposals for utility, duplication and overlap. After all, how many different down-scaled climate model projections does one area need?

Agriculture Secretary Scolds Rural Folks

by

Just reading this, I’m thinking that maybe Mr. Vilsack and his Department could team up with rural folks in developing a proactive message. It seems to me that if you take/decide to keep a job as an Agriculure Secretary, you are part of the solution.

And there are more “folks” in rural America, at least out west, than farmers. Maybe we need a broader “rural America” set of policies, and move proactively beyond the idea that those policies are all located in USDA, and that the Farm Bill is the sine qua non of rural America.

It also seems to me that eating, heating, and energy to run electronics are important to urban Americans, even if they don’t/can’t afford to take their recreation in rural areas. I guess maybe we can get all that stuff from other countries (after all, we’re “competing against the world”)..but I think we’ve had some issues with that, in the past.. at least.

But maybe the Secretary’s discussion is really about politics, not policy.

WASHINGTON — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has some harsh words about rural America: It’s “becoming less and less relevant,” he says.

A month after an election that Democrats won even as rural parts of the country voted overwhelmingly Republican, the former Democratic governor of Iowa told farm-belt leaders this past week that he’s frustrated with their internecine squabbles and says they need to be more strategic in picking their political fights.

“It’s time for us to have an adult conversation with folks in rural America,” Vilsack said in a speech at a forum sponsored by the Farm Journal. “It’s time for a different thought process here.”

He said rural America’s biggest assets — the food supply, recreational areas and energy — can be overlooked by people elsewhere as the U.S. population shifts more to cities, their suburbs and exurbs.

“Why is it that we don’t have a farm bill?” Vilsack said. “It isn’t just the differences of policy. It’s the fact that rural America with a shrinking population is becoming less and less relevant to the politics of this country, and we had better recognize that and we better begin to reverse it.”

“We need a proactive message, not a reactive message,” he said. “How are you going to encourage young people to want to be involved in rural America or farming if you don’t have a proactive message? Because you are competing against the world now.”

“The Future of the National Forests – Who Will Answer an Uncertain Trumpet?” by Jack Ward Thomas

by
Jack Ward Thomas touched on the ideas in this paper at his presentation at the Panel of the Chiefs at the Retirees’ Rendezvous in Vail, Colorado in September.

Here’s a link to the paper, well worth reading in its entirety from Jack Ward Thomas, wise elder, world-class scientist and former Chief of the Forest Service.

Here are some excerpts:

Courts ruled that the FS’s applications of “professional judgment” fell short of the required “hard look” in evaluating proposed management actions. As a result, NF administrators (and legal counselors) became increasingly risk averse and, too often, produced evermore voluminous assessments in an effort to demonstrate compliance with laws and regulations. Evidently, it was assumed that costs of court ordered “do overs” exceeded costs of “overkill” in the form of excessive documentation. For the most part, the strategy largely failed. Losers included citizens who felt inundated, confused, and turned-off by increasingly voluminous and “technically dense” documents. Costs in time and money increased. Post-mortem examination showed that such “over kill” was an ineffective defensive mechanism.

Does this remind anyone of say, Colt Summit, or the Little Belt hazard tree project? And I would add citizens who feel that they are excluded from legal processes that determine the outcomes on their public lands.

“Fierce in battle, many of the eco-warriors have been unable to come to grips with the consequences of victory and are now reduced to wandering about the old battlefields ‘bayoneting the wounded.’ Their counterparts from the resource extraction community, likewise, cannot come to terms with defeat and hold ‘ghost dances’ to bring back the good old days when they were the undisputed Kings of the West.”

Most hard core “environmentalists” demonstrated little concern with the social/economic consequences of their victories. Some, figuratively, continued to wander the old battlefields “bayoneting the wounded” via challenges to even minor forest management activities. Victories have consequences. To the victors belong the spoils – and some responsibility to ameliorate consequences of their victories – “you break it – you own it” (Thomas 2001a and 2001b). There was applicable wisdom in President Lincoln’s admonition to General Grant near the end of the Civil War – “Let ‘em up easy.”

On EAJA:

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (1980)

The EAJA allows citizens to sue federal agencies for non-compliance with law(s) and/or regulation(s). Winning plaintiffs are compensated for costs. Conversely, plaintiffs with low net worth (or have non-profit status) have no liability when they lose – no matter what havoc the suit may have inflected in terms of management delays and legal costs. An ongoing drumbeat of judicial decisions (i.e., “case law”) defines and redefines the “playing field” for political/legal games surrounding NF management.


What do you think of these ideas for the future?

Of “Gordian Knots” and “Certain Trumpets”

Today, the NFs are increasingly viewed by some as a liability – economic, political, social, and ecological – rather than an asset. NFs should be increasing in value as populations increase and forest and range lands in private ownership are increasingly fragmented and “no trespassing” signs blossom like flowers in the spring.

One of two approaches to that problem seems possible – perhaps likely. The first is to continue to “pick around the edges” with clarifying adjustments in applicable laws. That approach, if past is prologue, will entail long drawn out processes of adjusting myriad laws – and making new laws – piece meal. Such is likely to have predictable consequences – after all, we have been down that road before.

Or, it can be realized that picking, prodding, poking at, and adding to the Gordian knot could/should be replaced by a bold stroke that cleaves the knot. Past efforts to address management of public lands provide insights into reform – and why previous efforts failed. There are only two options – learn to love and appreciate the Gordian knot as having essentially brought active management to an end or to, once again, “break new ground.” The second will, sooner or later, become mandatory as we struggle with reducing public debt (which will, in the end, involve reducing federal expenditures while increasing revenues). A revised approach to NF management could contribute to solution – but only if the Gordian knot is severed, the mission clarified, and achievement of management objectives facilitated.

That task is too complex to be effectively addressed by Congress or the Administration with out some help. Preliminary efforts by a carefully selected group of knowledgeable individuals experienced in the management of natural resources arena, public land law, and administration of land management agencies, should be charged with developing potential solutions with associated benefits and costs. Those assigned should complete the task in a year or less given the information and experience already at hand.

Recommendations should focus on revisions of present laws (including repeal of those that are not current with extant situations, redundant, or are not in synch with other applicable laws) and new law(s) that clearly define the mission and the expectations for the FS. The best of the spectrum of “old laws” should be incorporated into new law(s) so as to clarify intent. Ideally, the result would be the “certain trumpet” to guide the management of the NFs and the FS.

Land use planning should be a meaningful – a guide to management action and funding – achieved within a year at much less costs. Before embarking on new efforts in planning it is critical to determine why such planning has failed so miserably and short comings rectified. Flexibility should be a component so as to deal sudden alteration in conditions – fires, markets, economics, and, insect and disease outbreaks.

New sources of revenues should be explored and instituted. As examples, grazing fees should be adjusted at regular intervals to reflect market conditions on similar private lands. User fees for recreational activities should be explored – say fees for access for hunting (Thomas 1984, Sedjo 2000b). Methods of dispute resolution, short of resort to the courts, should be developed. Perhaps those that challenge the agency in court should, when they lose, be held liable for damages – which can be significant in terms of legal costs and delays in executing scheduled operations (Peterson 2000).

The new instructions should prioritize the importance of factors bearing on the FS’s decisions – environmental questions, jobs, welfare of local communities, monetary returns to the treasury and counties, balance of trade, water flows, clearly defined tradeoffs, etc. Thomas (2009:198-199) put forth suggestions to overcome the shortcomings of previous commissions that addressed public land management. FS Chief Emeritus R. Max Peterson has made similar suggestions (2000).

1.) There will be a limited time for execution – say six months to one year. The report will be delivered to Congress and the President at the beginning of a new Congress so as to be sheltered from the every second-year fascination with elections.

2.) The key members will work full-time on the project.

3.) Commission members will be compensated at the rate of the highest level of the senior executive service.

4.) Support staff will be made available as requested by the Chairperson.

5.) The effort will begin with recognition that there are problems (the Gordian not) that demand adjustments in laws and regulations.

6.) Results will take the form of potential alternative courses of action packaged as legislation, or amendments to existing law(s), ready for introduction.

7.) Clarity of purpose, intent, and required process will be of paramount importance – i.e., there should be limited potential for court interpretation.

8. Efficiency of management (in both time and money) will be of paramount concern.

9.) An arbitrations process to handle disputes short of federal court will be determined.

10.) The right to appeal proposed agency actions should be preserved. However, processes will be instituted that prevent or discourage “game playing” to draw out decisions and impose costs that render pending management infeasible. Those who challenge and lose will be subject to economic penalties.
.
11.) It will be recognized that the existing panoply of laws, interpreted variously by the courts over the years, has created an effective, burdensome, cumbersome, and inefficient system of accountability that thwarts action by the FS and Congress. Such will be corrected.

Posewitz (2008:11) opined:

“If we are to sustain the legacy that it has been our privilege to enjoy, it is essential that people of principle and idealism respond to the current iteration of the perpetual crisis in public land management. It is time to not only rise in defense on the National Forest System, but also in defense of the custodial agency planted in our culture by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. “

Mitch Friedman (2008), self-identified as a leader of a “green group” supported FS Chief Dale Bosworth’s proposals for “collaborative restoration” of NF lands with “forest health” and “collaboration” as guiding principles. What seemed a rational and promising approach failed to yield much success. Funding such activities and keeping involved constituencies engaged in attaining support, the key to success – proved intractable.

“Muddling through” is wasteful and should not be tolerated (Nienaber and McCool 1996). As former Congressman Pat Williams (2008:8) of Montana plaintively asked: “FS – where did you come from, with what mission, and where, oh where are you headed?” That cogent, well-informed, plaintive question demands answers.

Miller (2008:17-18) believed that a successful future for the NFs lies in:

“…the creation of a cooperative conservation strategy in which local governments and organizations, in combination with federal land managers, develop forest plans. Proponents of collaboration have been inspired by the NFMA and the ESA that require public participation and interagency coordination: they have also been energized by community-based managerial initiatives promoted at the 1997 Seventh American Forest Congress…”

“…Moreover, although any change in the agency’s land management mission will require internal support from the FS’s leadership and staff, the real locus of any such transformation lies in Congress and the executive branch…”

Sedjo (2000b) recognized that the FS

“…no longer controls NF policy. Instead, mandatory provisions of the law and regulations…mean that the regional and local landscapes, watersheds, and their resources are now the focus of attention…the FS …now lacks the institutional capacity and authority to fully develop and implement ecosystem conservation agenda and resource management programs…due to lack of ability …to interpret and respond effectively to the public’s priorities…”

Enough already, it is time, way past time, to answer those old, up to now intractable questions. The future of the NFs and the FS rides on the answers. Obviously, the FS cannot, acting alone, provide such clarity. And, clearly, it is time, far past time, for clarity. Carpe Diem!

Martin Nie in the previous post suggested that we need a “land law review.” Framed that way, it places the locus of control, at least to some extent, with the legal profession. What I like about Thomas’s idea is that the group is determined more broadly.

Preliminary efforts by a carefully selected group of knowledgeable individuals experienced in the management of natural resources arena, public land law, and administration of land management agencies, should be charged with developing potential solutions with associated benefits and costs. Those assigned should complete the task in a year or less given the information and experience already at hand.

And perhaps not biting off all public lands and focusing only on the Forest Service would make the problem more tractable. What do you think?

Canada (BC) and US (Tongass) Forest Policy Comparisons: Nie and Hoberg

by

Check out these videos from Policy Issues in the Pacific Coastal Temperate Rainforest of North America On April 19, 2012. I thought it was extremely interesting to compare what happens in our system of court-governance compared to Canada’s and the way they work and results in neighboring and connected forests. Props to Bruce Botelho (City and Borough of Juneau) for organizing, moderating and posting such an interesting panel.

In Part 1, Nie and Hoberg compare the governance, processes and products of policy between countries.

In Part 2, Nie and Hoberg are part of a larger panel.

If you only have a small amount of time, about 16 minutes into Part 2 is a discussion of the role of litigation. About 47 minutes in is a discussion of Forest Service culture.

In response to a question, Martin suggests a land law review. I’ve got some links to the Natural Resource Law Center’s of the University of Colorado Law School’s progam, powerpoints and videos of its conference on that topic in 2010. but some appear to be broken so I’ll post those once I contact folks there and get them fixed.

They also touch upon jobs, local communities, and other topics.

One thing of interest to me (there were many) was when Hoberg said that he didn’t feel that 30% protected was “enough” because of the importance of that area. It is interesting how rainforests can be all about old growth and protection, while it is harder to make that same case in areas of frequent fires. Maybe we need two separate ways to think about conservation..clearly delineated so that rainy ideas are not projected onto non-rainy areas and vice versa. Also discussion on collaboration and comparing Alaska and other collaborative efforts, and Martin Nie gives his opinion on the new planning rule.

We hobbyist policy wonks usually don’t have funding to get out and about, and the video plus any discussion here seems like a great way to expand the mind and the dialogue with new ideas. Here is a link to the whole session program. Some of those look interesting as well, would appreciate any comments from folks who have viewed the other sessions.

I’d be interested to hear from you all anything that strikes you about these discussions, and if the contrast between US and Canadian systems provides any thoughts for you about improving our processes in the US.

Governor Kitzhaber’s Forest Vision

by

All: I have received NO responses to my visualization request here. OK, maybe that was too right-brained. How about sharing your visions for the future and submitting them to me for future posts ([email protected])?

To get you started, here’s one from Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon. Thanks to a colleague for this contribution. Oregon is an important place for many reasons, not least of which is that the current chair of the Senate subcommittee on public lands and forests. Senator Wyden has the same history as many of us, watching the the public forest debate over time from a front-row seat.

You can read the entire piece here in his testimony before the Oregon Board of Forestry in 2011.

Moving Forward

The answer to meeting these challenges is not to expect that the private industrial sector is suddenly going to shift away from a timber production framework as its primary focus. Nor is it to expect that federal land logging will return to the levels of the 1980’s and early 90’s. That is not what I’m saying. Clearly there are different histories, legal frameworks and standards applicable to private versus state forest management; and state versus federal forest management.

What I am saying, however, is that the three symptoms I just described are just that – symptoms; symptoms of a larger underlying problem: the fact that the status quo in terms of our economic, community and conservation values does not represent a sustainable or, quite frankly, a defensible balance. We are mired in ongoing conflict: timber sale by timber sale; forest by forest – rather than engaging in a more holistic strategy that can move us toward a collaborative solution that balances our environmental, economic and community values in a sustainable manner.

To achieve this vision, new and innovative approaches are needed across many areas tied to public forest management. This includes diversification of product lines and business models, including ties to community-scale biomass energy. Examples of this can be found in John Day and the partnership between Malheur Lumber and the local hospital and airport; and in the integrated wood product campuses from Wallowa County.

Innovation also includes the expansion and diversification of revenue sources for counties, for the Department, and for the health of forest lands and affected communities. We need to examine responsible ways to increase revenue options, including community forests, carbon sequestration markets, and other market-based approaches that help avoid the conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses.

This also includes expansion of state-forest ownership – and I would like to applaud the Board and the Department’s work on the Gilchrist State Forest and your help in keeping a working forest active in a place that needs working forests. I am also interested in looking at innovative new loan programs, funding partnerships, the use of bonding authorities or the expansion of voter-backed funding in support of conservation-based working landscapes and rural economic development around forest management.

Innovation also includes considering the establishment of a signature research center (like ONAMI and BEST) dedicated to innovation in the use of wood – perhaps a partnership between the Forestry Department at OSU, the School of Architecture at U of O; and the proposed Sustainability Center in Portland.

Finally, we need to support pathways that lead to consensus in management, particularly on the federal landscape. Since my last term as governor– and my work on the en libra principles — the good work of collaboration has grown significantly across many Oregon regions and communities closely linked with federal forests. In many places, projects have not been appealed or litigated for years. This is a positive trend. Gaining collaborative agreement across diverse constituents on public forest management provides stability, and in a world of increasingly limited funding, the consensus these local forest collaboratives produce represents a sound place to invest. That said, the ecological, social, and economic needs we face today demand restoration work at a larger scale. I will continue to support forest collaboratives – but will also challenge them to advance project work at a pace and scale that is meaningful for forest and community health.

We have an opportunity to break the mold of conflict and polarization by how we choose to move forward on our state forests. I believe you join me in wanting Oregonians and the nation to look at Oregon as a model for public forest management. To do so, two things are required.

First, we must view our state forests not in isolation but rather in the context of the larger forest landscape of which they are a part. This means that in addition to the management policies set forth by the Board of Forestry for state lands; we must aggressively pursue the latitude to engage in environmentally sound active management to restore the health of our federal forest lands;through our Congressional delegation, through the US Forest Service via channels like our Federal Forest Advisory Committee, and through our network of community-based forest collaboratives.

It also means we must develop polices and strategies that will result in logs harvested off private lands being as valuable here in Oregon as they are in Asia. In short we need to be exporting value added products, not our natural capital and our jobs. Both of these efforts will be priorities for my administration.

Second, the management of our state forests must reflect the kind of sustainable forest policy which can help inform the management debate across Oregon’s larger forested landscape.

What do you think of Governor Kitzhaber’s vision? Can you send me your own visions? Let’s see how different they are (and can we stick to not saying negative things about people who think differently in our vision; these would be positive visions).

Election Day Visualization

by
This was a while back, Secretary Ezra Taft Benson eating in his office, but I couldn’t find any more recent that were public.

This is the first Presidential election since this blog began in 2009, so it’s a good time to stop and reflect. At the end of the next couple of months, either way, we are likely to have some different people in various positions of interest. So to engage our right brains in visioning a better future, I ask you to do this visualization and write a post about it for the blog.

Imagine yourself with a private meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture. Imagine the Cage in the Whitten Building. This individual (current or new one)welcomes you, asks if you’d like some refreshment, and then has you sit down.

She/he starts out the conversation with

” (Insert your name here), I’ve heard from my staff that you have passion, knowledge about and great personal experience with our National Forests. I’ve brought you in for this discussion because I, too, care, about them deeply, and I’m interested in your perspective. I’m looking for advice. I understand that the Forest Service is only one piece of what the USDA does, but it’s a very important piece. I believe that our public lands, in one way or another, touch the soul of each American. If you were sitting in my chair, what would you do differently?

Your visioning might include these questions or others that occur to you.

What would you ask the Forest Service to do differently?

It seems like there is so much contention with Forest Service programs compared to our other programs. Do you think that there’s anything I can do about that?

If you had my job, and had to articulate a vision for the National Forests, what would it be?

I can speak for the President when I say he is ready to start mending fences and promoting new assertively bipartisan efforts. In the world of the Forest Service, what topic(s) do you think is(are) ripe for bipartisan action?

I’m confident that we can imagine and dream a better world.. and there’s lots of horsepower among our readers. I’m looking forward to seeing what we come up with.

Catching Up After SAF Convention

by

Here’s the view from my hotel in Spokane.
I hadn’t been to a Convention since I entered Planning World and it was amazing to see all the changes; in the people, in what they are studying and the way that everyone is looking at the world. I could post on every presentation I attended (and may, through time). I also found a variety of people interested in posting and commenting, a source of more Grassland photos, and received a lot of positive feedback about this blog (and you posters and commenters) and my presentation (which I will post as part of catching up).

Right now, though, I am heading home and have a bunch of other backed up pieces. But for now, here’s to the young people- foresters and others, and all those responsible for our mutual future. The young foresters I met this week were amazing- with incredible energy, positive spirits and competence.

What is it that they can do? Figure it out; how to provide a good environment, jobs, and responsible use of our resources to provide for the needs of society. There is a good Rosemary Radford Ruether (the ecofeminist theologian) quote that I can find when I get home). Something about harmony (shades of NEPA..) and a celebratory culture.

Donnie McClurkin was my background music for the week.. so here’s a musical affirmation for those folks called “Yes You Can”. I was listening to Donnie’s album “Again” on my IPod. So I looked for a Youtube to share, and Serendipitously the first one that came up featured a tree.
Here it is: