Month: February 2011

Sustainable Recreation

by

Is discussed throughout the Proposed Rule. In case you missed it, here it is :

The USDA Forest Service Mission: “To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”
The agency mission, one of sustainability, provides the foundation for the Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer programs.
Our Vision … “Renewing Body and Spirit, Inspiring Passion for the Land”
We provide recreation on treasured lands that brings health and vitality to individuals and communities and showcases our country’s natural abundance. Recreation on the National Forests and Grasslands invokes feelings of connection to the natural world and inspires responsibility to care for it.
Guiding Principles for our mission and vision:
 Connecting people with their natural and cultural heritage is a vital thread in the fabric of society. It contributes to the American identity and reminds people of the resources that sustain life – water, soil, food, and fiber. Moreover, recreation is the portal for understanding and caring for natural resources and public lands. It provides opportunities and motivation to advance from fun and attraction, through awareness, education and understanding, to a role of citizen stewardship – one of “giving back” and supporting sustained management of natural resources.
June 25, 2010 Page 4
 Recreational activity in the great outdoors promotes healthy lifestyles. Combined with good nutrition, it contributes to improved physical, mental, and spiritual health, and a shift away from treating illness toward creating wellness.
 Sustainability underlies all program decisions. In order to sustain the benefits of outdoor recreation for present and future generations, the recreation program must address and work toward a sustainable balance among the three spheres of environmental, social, and economic conditions.
 Community engagement is essential for creating a sustainable recreation program. Our role is to serve as planners, facilitators, conveners, and collaborators, tapping the enormous energy and creativity of people in communities that care for and benefit from public lands, including both the private and public sectors.
 National Forests and Grasslands are part of a larger landscape that includes: other public lands; open spaces at the local, state, and federal level; tribal lands; working farms and ranches, and; towns and cities. Respecting and cultivating the relationships across all lands and communities is necessary to strengthen the health and vitality of each.
 The Recreation program is integrated into the larger agency mission. By working together with other program areas to integrate program goals and service delivery, we maximize our contribution by connecting programs, people, and landscapes. .
Our Goals
Building on the foundation of the Mission, Vision, and Guiding Principles, we will strive to:
 Provide a diverse range of quality natural and cultural resource based recreation opportunities in partnership with people and communities.
 Protect the natural, cultural, and scenic environment for present and future generations to enjoy.
 Partner with public and private recreation benefit providers that together we meet public needs and expectations.
 Perform and plan by implementing systems and processes to ensure: effective decisions, sound investments, and accountability; collaborative approaches to integrated solutions across the landscape; and enhanced professionalism of our workforce.

Proposed Planning Rule Available!

by

Just when we were running out of things to talk about. ;)..

HERE.

Found this summary on the AFS website:

USDA Forest Service Unveils Proposed Planning Rule to Provide Science-Based Framework to Support Healthy Forests and Communities
Posted on February 10, 2011 by grassam
USDA Forest Service Unveils Proposed Planning Rule to Provide Science-Based Framework to Support Healthy Forests and Communities

Forest Service Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Rule

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2011 – The USDA Forest Service unveiled its proposed Forest Planning Rule today which would establish a new national framework to develop land management plans that protect water and wildlife and promote vibrant communities.

Forest Service land management plans guide management activities on the 155 National Forests and 20 Grasslands in the National Forest System. The proposed planning rule provides a collaborative and science-based framework for creating land management plans that would support ecological sustainability and contribute to rural job opportunities. The proposed rule includes new provisions to guide forest and watershed restoration and resilience, habitat protection, sustainable recreation, and management for multiple uses of the National Forest System, including timber.

“This proposed planning rule seeks to conserve our forests for the benefit of water, wildlife, recreation and the economic vitality of our rural communities,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The proposed rule will provide the tools to the Forest Service to make our forests more resilient to many threats, including pests, catastrophic fire and climate change. Healthy forests and economically strong rural communities form a solid foundation as we work to win the future for the next generation.”

Publication of the proposed planning rule in the Federal Register will kick off a 90-day public comment period, ending May 16. The Forest Service will use comments to develop a final rule. To encourage public engagement, the Forest Service is hosting an open forum to discuss the proposed rule on March 10, 2011 in Washington, D.C. The meeting will be Web cast to allow for national participation, and there will be additional public forums held throughout the country. The proposed rule, meeting information, and additional information can be found at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

Highlights of the proposed planning rule include:

■A more effective and efficient framework that would allow adaptive land management planning in the face of climate change and other stressors.
■Increased requirements for public involvement and collaboration throughout all stages of land management planning.
■Improved ability to respond to climate change and other stressors through provisions to restore and maintain healthy and resilient ecosystems.
■Increased protections for water resources and watersheds.
■More effective and proactive requirements to provide for diverse native plant and animal species.
■Provisions to guide the contributions of a National Forest or National Grassland to social and economic sustainability.
■Updated provisions for sustainable land, water and air-based recreation.
■Requirements to provide for integrated resource management of a range of multiple uses and values including outdoor recreation, range, timber, water, wildlife, wilderness, energy, mining, and ecosystem services.
■New requirements for a local and landscape-scale monitoring program that are based on the latest science.
“This proposed planning rule is the outcome of an open and transparent development process,” said Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman. “It’s a positive framework that will allow the Forest Service to more effectively restore our natural resources, support the economy, andadapt to changing conditions.”

The proposed rule would update planning procedures that have been in place since 1982, creating a modern planning process that reflects the latest science and knowledge of how to create and implement effective land management plans.

“The Forest Service has been a steward of American lands for more than a century, and this proposed planning rule will build on that tradition,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “We value the thoughtful input we’ve received in the development of this proposed rule, and we look forward to continuing collaboration to construct an adaptive management framework for the people’s forests and grasslands, based on sound science and reflecting public values.”

The proposed rule is the product of the most participatory planning rule development process in Forest Service history. To develop the proposed rule, the Forest Service held over 40 public meetings and roundtables across the country that drew more than 3,000 participants, and hosted a blog to engage the public. Additionally, the Forest Service reviewed more than 26,000 comments on the notice of intent to issue a new planning rule.

The USDA Forest Service manages 193 million acres of forests and grasslands across the country. Drinking water for approximately one in five Americans comes from the National Forest System. American forests, including those in the National Forest System, also capture and store enough carbon every year to offset 11 percent of the nation’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, hundreds of millions of Americans visit National Forests and Grasslands annually, with 98 percent of these lands offering free access. More information is available at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

###

Here’s a link to an AP story with a title “Forest Service to stress science over politics”
that says, among other things.

–

Hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging as well as ecosystem restoration, the U.S. Forest Service said Thursday it was revising its planning rules to find common ground between industry and conservation groups to avoid lawsuits that stall projects.

Planning rules are complicated for sure, but this story is not at all clear on what planning rules or plans are all about.

Defenders’ Planning Checklist

by

Here’s a new report from Defenders of Wildlife providing a checklist for evaluating the impending 2011 forest planning rule: Defenders’ Planning Checklist in PDF. 

This is sure to be the first of several upcoming evaluations and critiques, and we’ll post those here as well. 

I don’t see any big surprises here.  The group is obviously focused on a mandatory species viability standard, but it also calls for an “external factors” exception to the standard when necessary, such as when activities on private land threaten a species on an adjacent national forest.  This is something that Sharon has written about on the blog.  Also included in this section is a call for a “non-discretionary monitoring program to ensure that habitat is supporting viable populations.”

Lots more of course.  Including a section, close to my heart, calling for a strong framework of national standards, guidelines, and objectives.

And here’s the report on the Defenders’ blog:  http://experts.defendersblog.org/2011/02/obama%E2%80%99s-forest-rule-a-checklist-for-success-from-defenders-of-wildlife/

Travel Management Unrest Reaches Colorado

by

Here is a story about a protest of a travel management decision in Dolores, Colorado.

Speakers at the rally, including Edwards and Atwater, urged the Forest Service to reverse its travel management decisions and start over with a process that includes coordination with county governments and the general public.

“Coordination is a mandate,” Atwater said. “They have to work with us.”

The quote contains a reference to the concept of “coordination”. Previously, on this blog here we have asked about what this means.

I also found this paper on the web by John Williams of Oregon State University Extension. The paper is a summary, but, as you can see, most of these coordinating and cooperating requirements focus on NEPA documents or planning processes- and not so much the content of the decisions- which is where many of the local government groups want to go.

Of course, the recent ruling on the Southern California plan also lays emphasis on the importance of coordination (with the State, in that case) in process, yet the settlement seems to have substantive leanings. It is all certainly a dance between “process” violations; who’s at the table at settlement, and substantive settlements.

Previously most of the most controversial travel management decisions I’ve read about have been in California. Is there some broader trend here that we should pay attention to?

Green Fire- New Film on Aldo Leopold

by

Check out this new film..there’s a trailer here.

February 5: National Hispanic Cultural Center. Albuquerque, NM World Premiere! – NOW EXPANDED TO A SECOND THEATER!! Buy tickets now!

February 28: Pacific Film Archive Theatre, Berkeley, CA – More information

March 1: Al. Ringling Theatre, Baraboo, WI – More information

March 2: Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI -More information

March 3: UW-Fox Valley Communication Arts Center, Appleton, WI – More information

March 4: Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery, Madison, WI – More information

March 19: D.C. Environmental Film Festival, Washington, D.C. – More information

Additional premiere events planned for cities around the country including Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Boston, Minneapolis, New York, Atlanta, and more… Stay tuned for more dates!

Looks like Elk Country (outside of Denver and ABQ) needs to get on the list. I did get to preview an earlier version. I felt that, in that version, it did not acknowledge that many of the views of Leopold concerning the relationship of humans and the natural world were not “discovered” by him, but have been the beliefs of traditional earth religions from the dawn of time. Hopefully, the placement of his ideas within that context has been added to the film.

Conflict of interest statement: Dave Steinke, one of the directors of this film, works in the same FS office that I do. He has done many different films for a variety of purposes, and I admire greatly all the ones I’ve seen.

International Year of Forests Film Festival

by


For all forest fans- forests being something that unites most of us on this blog.

165 films were submitted from 30 countries for the International Year of the Forests. For a quick over view of the films and winners check out this website. Download the pdf program at that site if you’d like to see more detailed information and beautiful pictures.

Some of these films may be showed at the 2011 SAF convention which builds on the theme of international year of the forest.

Winning films will first be showcased at the global launch of Forests 2011 in New York, and then be screened at other festivals and events around the world throughout the year. The film festival is part of a global effort to raise awareness on the importance of forests, their relationship with people and the sustainable management, conservation and development of all types of forests.

The Board of Cranks Proposal

by

Andy Stahl has pointed out some issues around FS morale here.

But “what specific actions can be done to improve it?”, is the question at hand. The following is my contribution to the discussion. Please feel free to share your ideas.

To non- FS folks- I am aware that some of the irritations of modern organizational and technological life transcend the FS and even the government, e.g. “centralized services,” “help desks”, “self-service.”

Here is the proposal.

One cause of poor morale is a seemingly endless barrage of new requirements- usually with an unrealistic timeframe. Employees can’t understand why the new requirement is needed or imposed. One example is the new requirement to get two layers of approval plus ASC to approve requests to exceed the per diem rate, where it seems like for many years the supervisor was enough approval.

To improve morale, in my view, before a new requirement (that requires more time for employees to complete) is introduced, the new requirement would have to pass before the Board of Cranks. The Cranks would be volunteers but would also have a staff of 10 up and coming professionals, energetic, creative, and technically knowledgeable. This would then cost approximately $1,000,000 a year but be inestimably valuable in terms of morale. These would be called the Crankstaff and they would be virtual positions expected last two to three years. They would be encouraged to talk to districts and forests and conduct time trials when comparisons of alternative approaches need to be tested.

The Board of Cranks would review:
1) The necessity of a new requirement.
Why is it required? By whom? What has changed for this new requirement to be necessary?
Cranks would question the necessity. If they found it was necessary, they would move on to..
2) Is there an easier way to meet the need that led to the requirement?
a. How do the top three agencies on the morale survey handle the requirement?
b. How do other USDA agencies and BLM handle the requirement?
c. Post the requirement on a Cranks.fs.fed blog and give a substantial cash award to an individual who finds a better way to do it (based on a percentage of the costs saved agency- wide from the costs of the original “new requirement” proposal – not less than $1 K.)

Cranks would select the most cost-effective solution and post all the background information they generated on a website- say, Cranks.fs.gov. No letter with new requirements would be allowed to go out without a link to the background at the Cranksite. That way when people found out about a new requirement, they would understand why it was instituted and how hard our own folks had tried to minimize the hassle. At least, we would be no worse than other feds.

Cranks would determine the lead time for new requirements. For example, for performance evaluations, Cranks might determine that four months before the evaluations are due would be a minimal time frame for changes to the process- if changes show up after that, they can wait until next year.

Even after the new requirement is in place, there would be a specific comment section on the Cranksite blog for each requirement- for people to share their frustrations and creative ideas for minimizing the impact. The Crankstaff would monitor these sites and make recommendations to the Board of Cranks for changing the system when good new ideas were proposed.

Each month, the Chief would sit down with the Deputy Chief for Operations and the CIO (where appropriate) and the elected Chair of the Board of Cranks and review new requirements and their progress. If the Board recommended a change to a new requirement, the Deputy Chief would have to defend the new requirement to the Chief.

That’s just one idea. What’s your idea for improving FS morale?

White Pass Expansion

by

Did it really take 33 years? Here’s a blog piece by Ron Judd in the Seattle Times.

But because it was, technically, a sacrifice of a small piece of wilderness for ostensibly political purposes, the whole thing obviously still grates like a sharp rock in the hiking boots to at least some enviros, who see it as a black/white, corporate profit/vs. conservation matter. The Sierra Club’s Mark Lawler cited it immediately last week when I asked him how the White Pass expansion could legitimately be called a “major disaster,” as he suggested.

I get the emotions; conservation is an emotional issue to many Northwesterners, and for that we should all be grateful. I also appreciated attorney David Bahr’s important perspective — that important principles were maintained in the legal fight. Precedents from the case affected other litigation. But in this case, a bit of literal forest-for-the-trees logic should have come into play long, long ago.

It’s too late now, of course. But not for lessons learned. And one is that the environmental movement in this case would have been better served by focusing on its successes — celebrating the amazing lands preserved as wilderness for the small price of allowing a relatively green public use of a small, federal-highway-bordered parcel near an existing ski area — than by digging in for a legal battle which, over the years, increasingly smacked of crying wolf, if not vengeance.

With all that perspective knocking around in my brain, I made a visit to White last week and quickly fell in love with the new ski terrain on Hogback. It’s truly beautiful. Having hiked there on occasion in the summer, I realize it was truly beautiful as wilderness, as well (aside from the nearly lethal waves of mosquitoes; but that’s another story). But physical changes to the place indeed are minimal. It seems to me to be a shining example of limited development done correctly. And that became a focus of my piece.

Ranger Sue Ranger of the Naches Ranger District is careful not to criticize opponents of the project. They’re all constituents, as well, with a claim to proper use of public land. But as someone involved in the case for much of its history, she truly believes the best public use was accomplished.

She is one of those old-fashioned people (I count myself among them) who believe that environmental protection is essential — but not to the point that it prevents citizens from using public lands in low-impact ways, thereby creating a lasting political constituency for their protection from more egregious uses.

Most conservationists agree with that. The question, in this case, is whether alpine skiing and snowboarding is a low-impact use.

You an argue it both ways. And you should. I’ll probably even ponder it all over again myself, next time I’m at White Pass, making some turns up top and feeling fortunate to partake in a clean, green use my federal government decided — finally — to allow.