Month: February 2012

Be Careful What You Wish For

by

ImageA long time ago I wished for the opportunity to help draft planning rule language. This was important stuff that could influence the management of national forests for years to come. Unfortunately, I got my wish. That particular rule vanished somewhere in the change of administrations. I like to think that it wasn’t all time wasted and that it helped lay the groundwork for future efforts including the current one.

With the release of the FPEIS, the Forest Service seems very close to getting what it has wished for so long. Lately, I have wished for more meaningful discussion on the subject and I seem to have gotten my way here as well. Posters and commenters have been raising a number of interesting questions. Here’s my take on a few.

Didn’t the Forest Service want to replace the old viability standard with something that would be easier to defend in court?

Definitely. NFMA actually doesn’t say anything about viability. Instead, it talks about the “diversity of plant and animal communities.” The 1982 rule established the viability requirement and Management Indicator Species (MIS) as mechanisms for providing adequate diversity. Agency directives further spelled out how the designation of “sensitive species” would help accomplish this. Over time, what all these requirements mean, particularly procedures for monitoring of MIS and Sensitive species has evolved as litigation played out in various courts.

A lot of what evolved doesn’t make very good biological sense and doesn’t do very much to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities. The ecosystem and fine-filter focused language of the new rule really does make more sense biologically.  The catch is, there’s no case history in the courts yet to help define what it will really take to implement it. A lot of forests have figured out what kind of monitoring for MIS and sensitive species they need to do to be defensible in court.  Some of it may be a waste of time and money but at least it’s a devil they know pretty well. They may not get to know the devil of the new rule until a lot of terminology and language gets better defined by the courts.

Don’t the forests in the East cut more timber than those in the West?

Yup. I haven’t researched the most recent numbers, but a couple of years ago, the Southern Region (R8) harvested more volume than any other Forest Service region.  The national forests in Mississippi and the Ouachita in Arkansas led the pack nationally. Most of this harvest has been thinnings and almost all of it is part of projects designed to restore desired ecological conditions.

Isn’t “restoration” hard to define?

It can be, that’s why the answer to the next question is so important.

Why is collaboration necessary?

The reason that national forests in the South cut so much timber and restore some many acres of wildlife habitat (ultimately “ensuring” viable populations) with so few lawsuits is due to hard work up front to define desired ecological conditions in a collaborative fashion with stakeholders. When projects are viewed as necessary to restore forests to conditions that a large group of people want to see, the need to litigate those projects largely vanishes.

Aren’t there a lot of good reasons for a new rule?

Sure. It’s been a long time since the passage of NFMA. Scientific thought and management approaches have evolved so it makes sense to incorporate this knowledge into a new rule. Is a new rule necessary to write good forest plans and implement projects that provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities? Lots of good examples indicate otherwise.  Will implementing a new rule be easy or straightforward? Certainly not. Will it give us something to talk about? I hope so. Will the Forest Service come to regret getting what it wished for?  Stay tuned.

Opportunity (and Context) Lost: 2012 NFMA Planning Rule

by

The long-awaited NFMA “proposed planning rule” is out. It looks pretty much like the Draft rule to me. I have longed to see the Forest Service embrace adaptive management for public lands, or adaptive governance, as I argued here last year in Fixing the Rule: An Adaptive Governance Roadmap. But much like in the Draft, the preferred planning rule (Alternative A, pdf) in the Final Rule workup is a far cry from adaptive management.

Although draped in ecosystems rhetoric, when looked at from the real-world perspective of interrelated natural and social systems the 2012 Rule leaves much to be desired as adaptive management or adaptive governance. Here are four key points: First, the three levels of decision making—national strategic, forest administrative unit, project or activity—belie underlying realities of power and decision-making in the Forest Service. In short it stretches the imagination that important Forest Service decisions regarding ecosystems are to be made at the “forest administrative unit”, except for maybe the Tongass, The National Forests of Texas, and so on.

Second, desired (future) conditions are ineffectually dealt with at the forest or project scale, and often cry-out for contexts that don’t fit well under the category “national strategic.” Admittedly, the Forest Service has left itself an “out” re: broader scale assessments, but it is doubtful that many such efforts will yield substantive results.

Third, “standards” are better structured/set in contexts far from forest-level planning. I’ll be watching, but I can’t right now think of any meaningful standards that ought to be made in the development or revision of a forest plan.

Fourth, Why is the Forest Service hell-bent on replacing the federally accepted “appeals” process with an “objections process”? Does the Forest Service really believe that this is a change for the better?

My beef is not with many ecological/social concepts embedded in the 2012 rule: sustainability, species diversity, ecological integrity, etc. I have championed these for many years. But I have argued for years that they are better structured in an adaptive governance frame, rather than the rigid straitjacket of this rule. Is it time for Congressional oversight hearings on RPA/NFMA? Has this particular law outlived its usefulness? After all, the law was put in place in an era when production planning was still in vogue, before The Decline and Fall of Rational Planning. The law did not envision an era of collaborative stewardship of public lands.

Let’s look at each of the four identified problems in more detail:

Three levels of decision-making
In the old days when forest were viewed in large part through the eyes of production planners, it made sense to empower forest unit managers with setting up goals and objectives for individual national forests (as individual production factories). Projects and activities flowed from this goal setting: timber sales and other output production goals, for example. National or strategic goal and policy setting sat at the top and was informed by lower-level decision-making, although political pressures were arguably the main driving force for production goals like “getting the cut out.” This reasoning made its way into the RPA/NFMA and set the stage for the 1982 NFMA rule that still governs (despite repeated attempts to update it) the administration of the national forest system. But the days of viewing forests as production factories has ended.

Desired Conditions
Absent appropriate context, how is a forest supervisor to declare “desired conditions?” In my view, these appropriately derive from broader-scale assessments and policy considerations. Within such, a forest supervisor might make a periodic call as to forest or sub-forest niche(s). But to expect such without appropriate context-setting is asking the impossible. And it escapes me how this rule will promote effective context-setting.

Standards
Someone will have to show me just where forest level standards make any sense at all. I have argued before that they do not, and that standards are rightfully set and revised situationally as needed, not according to some time-clock for forest plan revision.

Objections Process to replace Appeals Process
I have never understood the need for this. It is at best a minor variation on a theme that could have as easily been made to work under the more-familiar appeals process. At worst, it proves a means to dodge public deliberation responsibility—to deny collaborators an opportunity to seek redress for surprise changes in proposed action as it becomes “federal action.” The only redress then becomes court challenge. It seems to me that in an attempt to streamline the process, the forest service only made things worse.

In Sum
Since the Forest Service has chosen not to take the adaptive management/governance path, why not revisit the RPA/NFMA law with an eye toward collaborative stewardship? I new or revised law might help the agency see how interrelated ecological and social systems require the interrelated efforts—at context-dependent scales—of both forest service line, staff, and research as well as collaborators from other agencies as well as interest groups and others who hold a stake in outcomes.

If the Forest Service had embraced adaptive governance in this rule, we would see broad-scale assessments well up at appropriate scale and scope, accompanied by broad-scale policy, plans, or programs meant to address problems identified in the assessments. Monitoring regimes would accompany both. All would be structured at scope and scale appropriate to resolve issues and problems identified. Maybe we’ll see such anyway, somehow welling up for so-called forest plan implementation and other policy. Or maybe we’ll see endless, mindless, context-blind rituals at the forest scale: pretend assessment, pretend planning, pretend monitoring—forever missing opportunities for adaptive management, for adaptive governance.

Related: Fixing the Rule: An Adaptive Governance Roadmap

Appeals Court on Sierra Nevada Amendments

by

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for this one..

FORESTS: Split appeals court orders new environmental study of Sierra Nevada plan

Lawrence Hurley, E&E reporter Published: Friday, February 3, 2012

A federal appeals court today found flaws in a U.S. Forest Service environmental review concerning a management plan for national forests in the Sierra Nevada.

The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, splitting 2-1, concluded that the service’s 2004 environmental impact statement had failed to properly analyze how a proposed forest plan would affect fish as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith said the majority had departed significantly from the circuit’s NEPA precedent.

The court rejected a second claim made by the Pacific Rivers Council that the government had not adequately addressed the impacts on amphibians.

The litigation focuses on an environmental impact statement that suggested changes to a 2001 plan, approved by the Clinton administration in its final weeks, that applied to the nearly 11.5 million acres of national forests in the Sierra Nevada.

The Clinton-era plan was the result of an effort during the 1990s to address certain environmental issues that had arisen, including long-term concerns about sustainability.

When President George W. Bush came into office in 2001, the Forest Service ordered a re-evaluation of the plan.

The 2004 environmental impact statement, which allowed for an increase in logging, was issued over objections from Forest Service staff, who raised questions about the effects on fish. Among other things, the new plan allowed for more construction of logging roads.

Writing for the majority, Judge William Fletcher — a Clinton appointee — said that the agency had failed to give a “hard look” at the environmental impacts on fish that is required by NEPA.

The 2001 study included a 64-page analysis of the impacts on each species of fish, Fletcher noted. In contrast, the 2004 statement “contains no analysis whatsoever of environmental consequences of the 2004 framework for individual species of fish.”

That was despite the fact that the new plan allowed for significantly more timber harvesting “much of it conducted nearer streams,” Fletcher wrote.

The court had no such problem with what Fletcher called the “extensive analysis” of amphibians.

Smith, who was appointed by Bush in 2007, accused the majority of making “fundamental errors” in its analysis by not showing enough deference to the agency and by disregarding circuit precedent stating that an agency’s NEPA analysis is not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act if it is “performed before a critical commitment of resources occurs.”

The majority also failed to take into account that the 2004 analysis did not need to be as detailed as a site-specific environmental impact statement that is required for individual projects.

The ruling is an “inappropriate and substantial shift in our NEPA jurisprudence,” Smith wrote.

Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said that in her view, Fletcher had the better of the argument.

“I don’t think Smith has it right,” Doremus said. “As Fletcher writes, it has long been the rule that agencies must evaluate the environmental consequences of their actions when it is reasonably possible to do so.”

Click snf to read the ruling.

Note the claims are about NEPA; it might be interesting to compare the level of analysis desired in this programmatic EIS to that in the 2001 Roadless Rule EIS, based on the 10th Circuit Appeals decision on that national level programmatic EIS. If anyone wants to do that, please send what you find and I’ll post.

The McClatchy Take on the Planning Rule

by

I saw this earlier this week in a Louisville paper. It’s hard for me to criticize newspapers when the whole news business is in such poor shape. I know from experience it’s easier to criticize others, than to produce carefully checked documents on a short time-frame. But it’s still of interest to compare the different kinds of coverage, because this is the journalism situation this country is in, and could have repercussions on public understanding of issues. As usual, my comments are in italics.

New forest-management plan weakens wildlife protection
McClatchy Newspapers
Published Thursday, Feb. 02, 2012

WASHINGTON — Back in the 1980s, when conservation advocates were trying to stop logging in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, they relied on a 1982 regulation that required the National Forest Service to protect wildlife such as the spotted owl throughout its range. They won, and a new Northwest forest plan in 1990 greatly reduced logging in the region’s old-growth forests on federal land.

Now the national planning rule that governs individual national forest plans is about to change, for the first time since the Reagan era. Scientists and environmentalists say many of the changes are improvements, but they object to a key change in the way the plan would protect wildlife.

Technically speaking, the 05 and 08 rules got this far (to publication). How about “some” scientists and “some” environmentalists object. Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

That part of the plan always has been controversial. The timber industry opposes it. Conservationists say it was vital to winning protection for old-growth forests. Now some ecologists and advocates say the Forest Service plan’s change on this point would punch a hole through key protections.

The plan, which covers all uses of forest — including timber harvests, grazing, recreation and wilderness — is expected to become final in early March. Until then, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack could still make changes. But when Vilsack announced the plan last week, he called it “a strong framework to restore and manage our forests and watersheds and help deliver countless benefits to the American people.” The plan is being published Friday in the Federal Register.

It’s interesting that the concept of “environmentalists vs. the timber industry” is in this newspaper, while some of us want to develop a restoration economy that would involve a timber industry. It’s also interesting that of the many groups quoted in many articles, they selected NRDC. Is this because more interesting articles have more controversy? Less interesting than “many groups applaud new rule?” Also if this story was published Thursday in the Bee, and it says the “plan” is in the federal register Friday.. One thing I always think about news articles is “if they don’t check easily checked facts, why should we believe them about complex concepts?

Conservationists say the wildlife provision is a crucial weak point.

“This plan is much less protective than the 1982 Reagan-era one on wildlife protection,” said Niel Lawrence, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This provision is the single strongest protection for the national forests, and the agency is not retaining it.”

Technically, they are quoting one “conservation” group. And a group that really doesn’t specialize in this issue as I pointed out in my previous post here. So far we have the MSNBC and McClatchy stories heavily dependent on NRDC. My usual take is “why didn’t you ask your local environmental groups if you are writing a story?” But McClatchy is national, so I guess has to ask “national” people, who have their own framings of the issue. As the industry consolidates, will we be seeing more of this? Here’s their mission:

The McClatchy Company is the third-largest newspaper company in the United States, a leading newspaper and digital publisher dedicated to the values of quality journalism, free expression and community service. Building on a 154-year legacy of independence, the company’s newspapers and websites are steadfast defenders of First Amendment values and advocates for the communities they serve.

The 1982 rule required the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat so that healthy populations of animals are “well-distributed” throughout each forest.

The new plan drops that language. Instead, it requires forest managers to maintain habitats. It leaves it up to the official in charge of a region’s forests to decide whether any individual species needs extra protection to ensure that it will continue to exist over the long term with “sufficient distribution.”

The nation’s largest national forest, the Tongass in southeast Alaska, has some land set aside for timber harvests and other areas for recreation and wildlife, as do other national forests. The Tongass’ 2008 plan requires the Forest Service to “maintain contiguous blocks of old-growth forest habitat in a forest-wide system of old-growth reserves” where “viable and well-distributed” populations of animals that depend on this habitat can live.

Under the new national plan, without the “well-distributed” range requirement, managers of the Tongass wouldn’t need wilderness areas spread over the forests’ hundreds of islands, but could limit wildlife protection to smaller areas, Lawrence said.

Brenda Halter-Glenn, who led the team that created the new national plan, said in an interview that the new measure was more realistic about wildlife protection.

“The focus of this rule is on ecological conditions or habitat,” she said. “Those are the things we think through our management actions we can affect. We can create or maintain or restore habitat, but we can’t necessarily ensure that we have viable populations of all species.”

One reason for that, she said, is that some animals, such as migratory birds, also depend on lands that are beyond the Forest Service’s control.

Halter-Glenn said the plan addressed the question of how much discretion to give forest managers by requiring them to show how they used science to inform decisions. “There’s a lot of accountability built in,” she said.

This is where they start to quote “scientists”, which I find interesting from a science policy perspective.

Many scientists, however, are still concerned about the discretionary nature of the plan, said Barry Noon, a professor of wildlife ecology at Colorado State University.

“The requirements aren’t really requirements, because they’re largely discretionary,” Noon said.

In addition, it’s not possible to judge the health of animal populations only by measuring how much vegetation they have, Noon said. The plan also should require monitoring populations of certain animals that are selected to get a sense of overall wildlife health, he said.

This is a planning regulation.. so why would you talk to a wildlife ecologist rather than an expert in planning, say Martin Nie of University of Montana? Scientists are supposed to be experts based on their knowledge of empirical facts. “Shoulds” by definition are normative and are generally not considered to be an appropriate role for scientists.

John McLaughlin, an expert in wildlife ecology and conservation who teaches at the Huxley College of the Environment at Western Washington University in Bellingham, said the plan should protect all native species. The new plan could be more or less protective than the old one, he said. “It depends on who’s making the decisions.”


More “shoulds” from scientists.

In the Northwest, officials attempted during the George W. Bush administration to dismantle the forest plan and open areas to the kind of clear-cutting that was common in the region in the 1970s and earlier. The Obama administration scrapped that effort.

I’m not sure if the is the Northwest Forest Plan, and I’m not sure that the “kind of clearcutting” was the issue, maybe some Northwesterners can chime in here.

But the Bush administration’s attempt to increase logging, McLaughlin argued, is an example of how leaving too much discretion to officials could “make conservation very vulnerable to political whims.”

But one person’s “political whim” is another person’s “will of the people” as manifested through the process of “elections”. But why are we legitimizing the viewpoint of a biologist on a planning and political science question? Here are the backgrounds of Barry Noone and John McLaughlin. I understand Barry because he was on the Committee of Scientists (the 1999 one), but of all the people with experience and study in forest plans, why did they pick McLaughlin to interview? Unless this was a local article for Olympia or Bellingham that then went national.

Conservation groups and the timber industry have fought over the wildlife protection in the forest plan for years.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and 58 other members of the Health

really, “Health”?

of Representatives wrote to the Forest Service last May, arguing that the provision in the rule that provides for plant and animal protection in the forests should be eliminated.

They argued that reliance on “best available scientific information” and the expansion of protection to all species — the 1982 rule covered only vertebrates — would cost too much and harm the forests. It also would “reduce the number of jobs in our already distressed rural communities and further limit the amount of the American wood and fiber available to aid our economic recovery,” the wrote.

The timber industry makes the same points.

Ann Forest Burns, a spokeswoman for the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said the 1982 requirement for healthy animal populations was a mistake in the first place, and that the Forest Service had made it “much worse.”


I don’t know that the FS, or the case law, made it “much worse”.

The timber group also argues that the rule’s wildlife protection terms should mention that the forest plan governs multiple uses of the forest, including logging. “They’ve moved beyond the objectives Congress had for them,” she said.

Conservation groups used the 1982 forest plan to argue for protecting the Northwest’s remaining old-growth forest on federal lands, a habitat that the spotted owl requires.

“If you take that away, there’s no other real legal protection,” said Mike Anderson, an attorney in Seattle for The Wilderness Society. The case for protecting old-growth forests from logging, he said, “has always been based upon it being an important habitat for imperiled species.”


This statement seems a bit dismissive of ESA.

The rule has some strong elements, such as the requirement to maintain and restore the health of ecosystems and watersheds, Anderson said.

“Protection for species as well as the ecosystem are important complementary protections,” he said. “Both need our attention. . . . We’d just like to see the species part strengthened before it becomes final.”

Dominick DellaSala, the president and chief scientist of the Geos Institute in Ashland, Ore., a consulting firm that focuses on addressing climate change, said there was another reason to keep the old forests: They store large amounts of carbon.

Cool-weather rain forests such as the ones in the Northwest and Alaska store more carbon per acre than any other forests do, DellaSala reported in 2010. A Forest Service study last year reported that worldwide, all forests soak up one-third of the carbon dioxide that’s produced by burning fossil fuels, keeping it out of the atmosphere, where it would trap energy and make the planet warmer.

The climate stuff seems like a bit of an unrelated thought, and the whole focus on “old growth” seems a bit Pacific Northwest-centric to me. The spotted owl is so.. one piece of the country and so.. 20th century. Note the quotes are all from PNW folks:

Niel Lawrence Olympia (?)
John McLaughlin Bellingham
Ann Forest Burns Seattle
DellaSala Ashland
Mike Anderson Seattle
Barry Noon Fort Collins Colorado
(which makes me wonder why they didn’t select Norm Johnson in Oregon?)

Which maybe is not so odd in Olympia or Bellingham, but look at the other McClatchy newspapers.

Anchorage Daily News (AK)
Beaufort Gazette (SC)
Belleville News-Democrat (IL)
Bellingham Herald (WA)
(Biloxi) Sun Herald (MS)
Bradenton Herald (FL)
Centre Daily Times (PA)
Charlotte Observer (NC)
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer (GA)
El Nuevo Herald (FL – Spanish)
Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX)

Fresno Bee (CA)
The (Rock Hill) Herald (SC)
Idaho Statesman (ID)
The Island Packet (SC)
Kansas City Star (MO)
Lexington Herald-Leader (KY)
Merced Sun-Star (CA)
Miami Herald (FL)
Modesto Bee (CA)
(Raleigh) News & Observer (NC)
News Tribune (Tacoma, WA)
The Olympian (WA)
Sacramento Bee (CA)
The State (SC)
he Sun News (SC)
The Telegraph (GA)
The Tribune (CA)
Tri-City Herald (WA)
Wichita Eagle (KS)

Historic thinning plan could save Rim Country

by

Thanks to the SAF E-Forester for this one from the Payson Roundup:

Historic thinning plan could save Rim Country
Projects included in first phase of ambitious plan to revive timber industry and protect the forest

By Pete Aleshire

January 31, 2012

At least 2,000 acres in Rim Country will be included in the first, historic 10-year contract with a new generation of loggers to protect forested communities through massive thinning projects, a Forest Service team told top elected officials in Payson last week.

Loggers will thin two huge tracts of overgrown forest along the Control Road between Tonto Village and Whispering Pines as part of the 4-Forests Restoration Initiative (4-FRI), which ultimately hopes to thin 2.5 million acres in four national forests.

“This is the largest environmental impact statement ever done and the largest statewide contract in history,” said Dick Fleishman, assistant team leader in the sweeping attempt to restore the world’s largest ponderosa pine forest.

The Forest Service team made the presentation at the Payson Town Hall last Thursday before Gila County Supervisor Tommie Martin, Payson Mayor Kenny Evans and other Rim Country leaders.

The rangers said they hope to settle on a contractor to thin the first 300,000 acres soon and complete a groundbreaking environmental impact study before the end of the year.

The Forest Service hopes the huge acreage and 10-year contract term will convince timber companies to invest heavily in new sawmills, wood-burning power plants and wood product factories to make things like pressed wood and particle board products. Such mills and power plants could turn a profit on the hundreds of millions of small trees that now pose an ecological drain on the forest and a fire danger to communities like Payson.

The Forest Service has spent millions hand-thinning and burning 80,000 acres of buffer zones around Rim

Country communities in the past five years. But this project would get timber companies to do the thinning at no cost to the taxpayers in return for the wood from the small trees. Tree densities in the past century have increased from perhaps 50 per acre to 600 to 1,500 per acre due to fire suppression and grazing, according to Northern Arizona University researchers.

Mayor Evans appealed to the Forest Service team to make sure 4-FRI quickly thins a 224,000-acre watershed that drains into the Blue Ridge Reservoir. Water in that deep narrow reservoir will double Payson’s long-term water supply as soon as the town completes a $30 million pipeline.

Forest Service Team Leader Henry Provencio said crews in that area have already thinned some 5,700 acres and partially cleared out another 30,000 acres with controlled burns.

Supervisor Martin said a single fire in the thick forest could cause erosion that could start to fill the Blue Ridge Reservoir with rock and soil.

“One fire later, we’ve got nothing but mud slides,” she said.

Provencio conceded that the bulk of the 300,000 acres included in the first set of contracts lie around Flagstaff in the Coconino and Kaibab forests, since the forests there had already been inventoried and pose the greatest danger to towns and subdivisions.

However, he said the Blue Ridge area could make it into a second set of contracts for 300,000 to 700,000 acres the Forest Service hopes to have ready to bid in another year or two.

“We have a two-year plan. There can obviously still be fires in there. I guess we keep our fingers crossed in the interim,” said Provencio. “But it’s a priority area.”

The two Rim Country areas most likely to make it into the first round of contracts would help protect Christopher Creek, Tonto Village and Whispering Pines, currently the most fire-menaced communities in Rim Country.

The Payson Ranger District has thinned thousands of acres to create buffer zones around all the other major Rim Country communities, including Payson Pine, Strawberry and Star Valley. That includes some $1.3 million spent this year to re-thin about 8,000 acres as well as about 800 acres of new thinning and burning.

“We’re 95 percent done with our most critical areas,” said Payson Ranger District Fire Management Officer Don Nunley.

In the past decade, the Payson Ranger District has hand-thinned 29,000 acres and used controlled burns to clear another 53,000 acres. Various communities have contributed perhaps $700,000 to help push that effort, but most of the money has come from the Forest Service.

The 4-FRI team said the first contracts went to the Flagstaff area partly because of the access to existing mills and wood product operations. In addition, Flagstaff faces an enormous fire danger, as illustrated in 2010 by the 15,000-acre Schultz Fire, which spurred evacuations, consumed homes and then caused devastating mud slides.

“They did the easy areas first — we’re one of the hard areas,” said Supervisor Martin, who has spent years working with loggers, environmentalists, researchers and forest managers to help develop the 4-FRI approach.

The plan depends on convincing timber companies to invest in mills that can use the small-diameter trees and brush.

The 4-FRI team hopes it can structure the contracts so the timber companies can use the profits they make in areas with lots of mid-sized trees to help subsidize areas with a greater mix of brush and small trees, like Rim Country.

Both Martin and Evans urged the 4-FRI team to get the law changed to allow 20- and 30-year contracts, rather than the present, 10-year maximum.

Evans said the 10-year contract term has scared away many timber companies.

“We’ve had multiple contacts with people that want to come in, but we say ‘10-year contract’ and they don’t return our calls. You have to find a way around that 10-year limit if you’re going to convince companies to invest in mills,” said Evans.

Provencio noted that the Forest Service hopes that the Congress will allow longer terms on the contracts when it reauthorizes the key law in 2013.

The group also discussed one of the most contentious aspects of the forest restoration approach — a proposed limit on the size of the trees cut.

The coalition that developed the 4-FRI approach agreed that the thinning should focus on trees less than 16 inches in diameter, a key point in winning over environmental groups that had lobbied for years to restore old-growth forests dominated by big trees.

Such big trees can withstand frequent, low-intensity ground fires natural to ponderosa pine forests, but not when thickets of small trees carry the fire up into their lower branches.

The legal deadlock that stalled many timber sales often focused on the struggle to save those big trees.

However, Provencio said research convinced the team to design timber cuts to create a diverse, open forest with open areas and clusters of trees. In many areas, that may require removing trees larger than 16 inches.

Each site will differ depending on soils, rainfall and other factors. The open space built into the timber sale will likely range from 10 percent to 50 percent.

“It’s not ‘one size fits all.’ In the last 100 years, a lot of trees have grown into those open areas,” said Provencio. Instead, a healthy forest requires clusters of trees separated by open areas.

Martin said the agreement to leave most of the 16-inch trees was crucial to creating the consensus between the loggers and the environmentalists.

“Many of us don’t believe in a 16-inch diameter cap. But if we don’t have the cap, then the industry will just go after the big trees. But we can live to fight another day if we can get all the stuff below 16 inches out of there.”

That process will build trust between all of the parties involved, who all ultimately want a healthy forest. “Trust is something you behave yourself into,” said Martin.

Early Adopters of New Planning Rule Announced

by

California national forests among the first selected as first to implement a new planning rule
Thursday, 02 February 2012 03:00 Editor

http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23486:california-national-forests-among-the-first-selected-as-first-to-implement-a-new-planning-rule&catid=44:recreation&Itemid=176

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Forest Service Wednesday announced eight national forests that will be the first to revise their land management plans using a new National Forest System Planning Rule, after it is finalized in the months ahead.

The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest in Idaho, the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico and California’s Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests will begin revising their plans shortly after a final rule is selected.

This announcement follows Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s release last week of the agency’s intended course of action for finalizing a planning rule, included as the “preferred alternative” in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule.

“These forests will demonstrate straight out of the gate what we’ve been talking about in terms of collaboration,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “People will see that under a new rule, public engagement increases and process decreases, all while provide stronger protections for our lands and water.”

The preferred alternative is grounded in science and public input, and seeks to deliver stronger protections for forests, water, and wildlife while supporting the economic vitality of our rural communities.

It requires providing opportunities for public involvement and collaboration throughout all stages of the planning process, as well as opportunities for Tribal consultation and coordination with state and local governments and other federal agencies.

These eight national forests were selected because of their urgent need for plan revisions, the importance of the benefits they provide, and the strong collaborative networks already in place.

They will emphasize strong science, collaboration, strengthened protections for land, wildlife and water, and opportunities for sustainable recreation and other multiple uses that support jobs and economic vitality as they begin the process to revise their plans.

“There are 14 million acres of national forest at risk of fire in California, so this new approach to forest planning is vital,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California). “I am encouraged that a new planning rule will build on existing efforts like the one in the Sierra National Forest that bring together scientists, timber harvesters and environmental groups to reduce hazardous fuels. We need more of that type of cooperation to reduce fire risks and prevent harm to people and property.”

“We have seen how collaboration is bringing divergent viewpoints together in Idaho under the Clearwater Basin Collaborative (CBC) and the development of the Idaho Roadless Rule. I note the Forest Service’s active collaboration in both of these processes and I recognize its commitment to collaboration in this new rule,” said U.S Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho. Crapo worked with local residents and the Forest Service to convene the CBC in 2008 as a national model for collaborative land management.

Crapo continued, “It is important to note that the new planning rule does have its critics and is controversial in the view of many affected interests. Those concerns need to be respected and managed to a successful outcome. So while I have a mixed view of this rule, I will work with the Forest Service and the affected parties to make this effort successful and achieve the many objectives of collaborative management of our public forests. Any collaborative process should decrease the potential for litigation and provide opportunities for consensus-based management activities on our public lands. I look forward to working with Chief Tidwell and hearing concerns, questions and comments about the new rule.”

The planning rule provides the framework for U.S. Forest Service land management plans for the 155 forests and 20 grasslands. USDA will issue a record of decision selecting a final planning rule no less than 30 days following publication of the PEIS in the Federal Register this Friday, February 3, 2012. Early adopter forests will begin the plan revision process in the months following a final decision.

Members of the public will have a number of opportunities to continue to be involved after a final planning rule is selected, in addition to participating in the plan revision process for the national forests announced today. The Forest Service also will be revising and issuing new directives for public notice and comment that will provide further guidance in implementing a final rule.

A new federal advisory committee for implementation of a final planning rule will provide another opportunity to collaborate in National Forest System land management planning. Interested members of the public are encouraged to seek nomination to the committee: the call for nominations was published in the Federal Register on Jan. 5, 2012 and will close on Feb. 21, 2012.

A final rule planning rule, when selected, 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.

Revisions of land management plans would take less time and cost less money under the preferred alternative than under the current 30-year-old procedures, while achieving better results for people and the environment.

The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is 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 manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world.

More on CFLRP and Restoration

by

As Marek Smith says in this comment , linked to this document
titled “Increasing the pace of restoration and job creation on our national forests.”

there is much going on right now. I won’t be able to catch up until the weekend. But here’s a piece from Rob Chaney of the Missoulian:

U.S. Forest Service plans to boost timber production, forest health work

ttp://missoulian.com/news/local/u-s-forest-service-plans-to-boost-timber-production-forest/article_710829e8-4e16-11e1-aff9-001871e3ce6c.html

The U.S. Forest Service wants to speed up work on national forests, for both timber production and forest health.
“Collaboration is most effective in getting forests managed in a proper way,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said during a conference call on Thursday. “We want to move beyond the conflicts in the past that slowed progress down. We’re going to look to encourage environmentalists, folks in the forest industry, people who live in forest communities and other stakeholders to work for healthy forests.”
Vilsack pledged the Forest Service would boost its lumber production from 2.4 billion board feet in 2011 to 3 billion board feet by 2014. That would come through a 20 percent increase in forest acres treated over the next three years.
Those treatments also include fuels reduction, reforestation, stream restoration, road decommissioning, culvert work and prescribed fire, as well as timber harvesting.
Much of it will be paid for with $40 million in new congressional funding for local forest projects this year. That’s up from $25 million last year, the first time Congress authorized money for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.
Montana’s Southwest Crown of the Continent forest project was one of the first 10 selected for the program, receiving $4 million in 2011. It should receive that amount again in 2012, according to Forest Service director of forest management Cal Joyner.
“By increasing the scale of areas we look at, we’re planning and considering larger parts of the landscape,” Joyner said. “That leads to a greater pace of activity.”
Idaho had one project approved last year in the Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater region. This year, the state has two more: the Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters Project for $2.4 million and the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative for $324,000.
The board feet expansion could have a significant effect in the Forest Service’s Region 1, which includes Montana, according to Montana Wood Products Association director Julia Altemus.
“That would be about 360 million board feet coming off Region 1,” Altemus said. “That’s a lot. The target is usually 270 million to 300 million, so they’re looking at doubling that. I’m not sure they’re going to have the personnel capacity (in the Forest Service) to do that.”
The acceleration should not cause problems with local state initiatives like Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester’s proposed Forest Jobs and Restoration Act or a similar measure proposed in Oregon, Vilsack said. Those measures would also require the Forest Service to increase the pace of forest work, such as Tester’s mandate for treating at least 10,000 acres of Montana national forests a year.
“I don’t see we’re going to be working in conflict,” Vilsack said. “We’re going to be working cooperatively and collaboratively to make sure that we get the best use of the forest opportunities we have.”
The Forest Service work would also include bark beetle treatment, projects to improve watershed health and wildlife habitat, improving markets for wood products like biomass-based fuels and efforts to boost recreation opportunities, Vilsack said.

Obama admin vows to speed restorations, increase timber harvests E&E News

by

Obama admin vows to speed restorations, increase timber harvests
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

The Obama administration announced plans to accelerate today the restoration of 193 million acres of forests and grasslands, a proposal expected to significantly increase timber harvests.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also announced more than a dozen new collaborative restoration projects made possible in large part by a boost in 2012 funding.

The projects, which are outlined in a new report, will include forest thinning, invasive species removal and road decommissionings. They are designed to combat threats like wildfires, bark beetle infestations and climate change.

They are also designed to bolster logging jobs by increasing timber harvests 25 percent by 2014.

“These efforts will increase our ability to fight fires effectively,” Vilsack said in a conference call this afternoon with reporters. “This is about jobs. It’s about proper restoration. It’s about safer communities.”

Most of the new projects will be funded under the collaborative forest landscape restoration program, an initiative established in 2009 by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) as part of an omnibus public lands bill.

The program received its maximum allowed $40 million this year, up from $25 million in 2011.

Vilsack said the Forest Service will be funding 13 new restoration projects, on top of the 10 projects that were approved for funding in 2010.

Activities will include thinning for wildfire reduction, stream restorations, road decommissioning and replacing culverts for fish passage as well as prescribed fire, said Mary Wagner, associate chief of the Forest Service. The agency expects to increase the acres it mechanically treats by 20 percent over the next two years.

“That’s well supported by the collaborative, science-based approaches the … projects are using,” she said.

The collaborative program has garnered support from environmentalists, timber groups and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Bingaman and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo (R) last fall successfully urged colleagues to boost CFLR funding from $30 million to $40 million (E&E Daily, Nov. 10, 2011).

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, last summer credited the program’s Four Forest Restoration Initiative in Arizona — a $3.5 million project that will treat up to 50,000 acres per year of southwestern ponderosa pine — for reducing the severity of wildfires in his state. The Center for Biological Diversity, a frequent litigant against forest projects, has also endorsed the initiative.

The new projects to receive CFLR funding are:

•Burney-Hat Creek Basins Project in California, $605,000.
•Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration Project in Missouri, $617,000.
•Shortleaf-Bluestem Community Project in Arkansas and Oklahoma, $342,000.
•Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters Project in Idaho, $2,450,000.
•Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative in Idaho, $324,000.
•Southern Blues Restoration Coalition in Oregon, $2.5 million.
•Lakeview Stewardship Project in Oregon, $3.5 million.
•Zuni Mountain Project in New Mexico, $400,000.
•Grandfather Restoration Project in North Carolina, $605,000.
•Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group Cornerstone Project in California, $730,000.
In addition, the following three projects were approved to receive Forest Service funding in 2012:

•Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 in Washington, $968,000.
•Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration in Arkansas, $959,000.
•Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Reduction, De Soto National Forest, national forests in Mississippi, $2.7 million.

More Voices on the Planning Rule: CEQ Blog and Livestock Folks

by

Here’s the link.

Praise for Charting a New Direction on National Forests

Posted by Tom Tidwell on February 01, 2012 at 11:00 AM EST

Editor’s Note: Tom Tidwell is Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

Last week, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and I announced our intent for finalizing a new planning rule to govern management of the National Forest System. The 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands are critical to President Obama’s vision of an economy built to last, providing clean air, clean water, habitat for wildlife, opportunities for healthy outdoor recreation, jobs and growth in rural communities, and a range of other benefits for all Americans.

When finalized, a new rule will replace outdated procedures that have been in place since 1982 that no longer reflect the best science, public values, or agency expertise. Land management plan revisions under the preferred alternative would cost less money and take less time, while protecting and restoring our forests, water and wildlife and supporting vibrant rural communities.

We listened to input from the public to develop the preferred course of action, included as the preferred alternative in the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released last week. We hosted the most collaborative and transparent rule-making process in agency history, and carefully considered more than 300,000 public comments.

Here is what some of our partners and interested members of the public have said about the preferred alternative:

“In the early 1980’s, I was a forest planner attempting to implement what was then the new planning rule. I believed it was a good rule, and for its time, it was. But the 1982 rule is out of date for today’s circumstances. Today, the Forest Service is focused on restoration, including restoring fire dependent ecosystems to a more natural condition. This new preferred alternative protects our natural resources, promotes sustainable recreation and safeguards our precious drinking water while allowing for timber harvest and facilitating restoration.

The preferred alternative modernizes the planning process. It promotes a collaborative approach where people are engaged throughout the entire process all the way to implementation. It is the outcome of extensive public engagement, including hundreds of thousands of comments and thousands of people participating in roundtable discussions around the country. When the final decision is published, the Forest Service needs an opportunity to implement a new planning rule for the benefit of the American people.”

~ Dale Bosworth, Former Chief of the U.S. Forest Service

“It is vital that the Planning Rule be modernized to enrich the contribution of a local National Forest or Grassland, within the context of its statutory mandates and obligations, to natural resource conservation at the landscape level. The preferred alternative will facilitate the contribution of the individual National Forest or Grassland to statewide and regional fish and wildlife conservation objectives.

A modernized rule provides for better integration of National Forest System management with other landscape conservation initiatives such as the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, National Fish Habitat Partnerships, and in facilitating fish, wildlife and plant adaptation response to climate change. The State Fish and Wildlife Agencies look forward to greater successful delivery of conservation on the ground through implementation of the new planning rule.”

~ Gary Taylor, Legislative Director, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

“The National Forest System is a haven for Americans seeking a stronger connection with their families and nature through healthy outdoor recreational pursuits. The preferred alternative will support these sustainable recreational experiences, and will increase the involvement of the public in planning efforts.

We expect this new collaborative process to result in better, more broadly supported outcomes for these treasured public lands and their enjoyment. We look forward to working with the U.S. Forest Service on the first plan revisions carried out under a new rule when it is finalized in the near future.”

~ Kevin Colburn, National Stewardship Director, American Whitewater

“Forests cover one-third of the United States; store and filter half the nation’s water supply; provide jobs to more than a million wood products workers; absorb nearly 20% of U.S. carbon emissions; offer 650 million acres of recreational lands that generate well over $15 billion in economic activity annually; and provide habitat for thousands of species across the country. Yet our forests today face a “perfect storm” of threats, including catastrophic wildfires, outbreaks of pests and disease, poorly planned roads, increasing development, climate change, and policies that lead to gridlock rather than restoration.

A new Forest Planning Rule is sorely needed, and the preferred alternative is a positive proposal based on extensive public participation. It will allow plans to be developed more efficiently. The preferred alternative encourages restoration treatments that are needed to catch up to the problems our forests face. And it strengthens science requirements, giving science a clear role that can bring stakeholders together to strengthen long-term forest conservation. Most people born in 1982 have kids by now; it’s time for a new generation of Forest Planning, too.”

~ Laura McCarthy, Senior Forest Policy Lead, The Nature Conservancy

Livestock Groups Find US Forest Service Planning Rule Unworkable
Fri, 2012-01-27 14:33
NCBA Release

The Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) said the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service ignored concerns of industry and members of Congress, disregarded federal statute and defied logic in its preferred alternative forest planning rule, which according to a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released by USDA on Jan. 26, 2012, will be issued as the final rule in 30 days. John Falen, PLC president and Nevada rancher, said the alternative plan is very similar to the proposed planning rule released as a draft in early 2011 that would have devastating long-term impacts on ranchers’ ability to access and responsibly manage the land and its resources.

“Rather than listening to concerns from those of us who have devoted our livelihoods to raising livestock on federal lands, the Forest Service is continuing down a path with this forest planning rule that will have long-term, chilling effects on my ability to do my job,” Falen said. “If implemented, this final rule will thwart multiple-uses and will have rippling effects on the health of rural economies by shifting the focus from multiple-use to non-use and ‘preservation’ on the 155 forests and 20 grasslands that constitute the National Forest System.”

Margaret Soulen Hinson, ASI president and Idaho producer, said ASI, PLC and NCBA are extremely disappointed that the Forest Service opted to retain the requirement to “maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern” in the preferred alternative forest plan. She said the term “maintain viable population” does not appear in federal statute and has already proven a problem under the current planning rule, as it is ill-defined and nearly impossible to achieve. Soulen Hinson said there is no scientific consensus on what level of any given population is “viable” or how it is to be managed and added that the new rule expands the provision beyond vertebrates to all species, including fungus and moss.

NCBA President and Montana cattleman Bill Donald said many aspects of the draft rule, which NCBA, PLC and ASI found unworkable and commented on, are still included in the preferred alternative planning rule. Specifically, Donald said the requirement that the agency use the “best available science” would likely incite litigation. He added that the creation of a new category of protected species, completely unrelated to Endangered Species Act called “species of conservation concern” and determined at the whim of the regional forester, will negatively impact the livestock industry’s ability to access forest lands to raise healthy animals. Donald said the modified alternative is in ways worse than the draft rule.

“It seems that the Forest Service is intent on locking-up the forest system and locking-out ranchers from land that we have responsibly managed for decades,” Donald said. “The Forest Service needs to scrap this aberration and work with multiple-use industries and members of Congress on a planning rule that truly will preserve the health and sustainability of forest lands across the country.”

Donald, Falen and Soulen Hinson said NCBA, PLC and ASI support certain aspects of the rule, such as the requirement that individuals who object to plans and plan amendments must have filed formal comments during the public comment period. They said this provision will prevent “radical environmental litigators” from purposefully abstaining from involvement until the time is right to sue.

Note from Sharon:
The strongest voices I have seen against the new rule have been this group, NRDC and Center for Biological Diversity. An unlikely combination, and for different reasons, but it’s clear that the vast majority of groups across the map, despite some concerns, are willing to give this new rule a try. This says a lot about the effort and the people who developed the rule, because I’m sure it wasn’t easy to find that middle ground.

Working Towards Common Ground in Idaho

by

x-foes aim for common ground on Idaho forests
Environmentalists, timber executives, scientists and others converge on Boise to begin the hard part of their forest collaboration work.
BY ROCKY BARKER – [email protected]
Copyright: © 2012 Idaho Statesman
Published: 01/31/12

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/31/1974737/ex-foes-aim-for-common-groundon.html

The easy work for former adversaries in the Idaho timber wars was to start talking and develop trust.

Now those environmentalists, foresters and loggers are testing the strong relationships they’ve forged in collaborative efforts state-wide. The Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership is tackling the hard issues about how much timber can be cut and thinned to restore healthy forests, and how that will be paid for.

“So much of it comes down to what we are leaving behind,” said Jonathan Oppenheimer, senior associate for the Idaho Conservation League. “More and more, we’re having these discussions.”

The collaborators are in Boise this week for two days of conferences aimed at finding common ground on thinning or cutting the forests of North Idaho.

There is consensus among environmentalists and industry foresters that thinning the ponderosa pine-dominated forests makes them healthier, more resilient and more resistant to large-scale fires. Ponderosa pines make up most of the forests around Boise.

There is less agreement about the stands of trees that grow in the wetter, higher elevations — “mixed severity forests” — that make up most of North Idaho.

But forest science is beginning to suggest that these large areas of mixed-severity forests can, and perhaps should, be cut.

HUMANS IN THE FORESTS

Collaborators are forging new paths in places like the Clearwater-Nez Perce National Forest of Central Idaho. There, 3 million acres of national forest is in wilderness and roadless areas, essentially off-limits to logging. It’s the other 1 million acres for which the two sides are seeking to develop a restoration schedule — with the goal of finding an approach that improves fish and wildlife habitat, allows the right kind of fires and allows a steady, predictable pipeline of forest products.

In most western forests, fire is the main ecologic disturbance. That’s true for North Idaho’s roadless and wilderness areas.

But outside those areas, humans — through logging, thinning and even prescribed burning — are the primary actor on the forest’s ecology.

“Man is the disturbance agent here,” said Bill Higgins, the resource manager of the Idaho Forest Group in Grangeville, one of the larger timber companies in the state. “If you buy that, then you are a long way down the road.”

The idea is that through careful combinations of thinning, prescribed burning and logging — with stream buffers to protect endangered salmon and bull trout — loggers can mimic the effect of fire at keeping the forests healthy and not dangerously overgrown.

As part of this holistic approach, old eroding roads would be obliterated, stands of old-growth trees protected and wildlife habitat enhanced.

Higgins has two goals. One is to make the projects — which the Forest Service calls “stewardship contracts” — big enough to keep workers on the job for a couple of years and provide a dependable supply of logs for mill owners.

The other is a larger goal: Through the kind of landscape management that environmentalists have pushed for two decades, Higgins hopes to persuade the Forest Service to increase the planned harvests in its forest plans to provide a solid foundation for the industry so that he and other companies can market the byproducts of restoration.

PAYING FOR RESTORATION

It all comes down to financing, said David New, a former vice president for timber land for Boise Cascade, who is now a consultant.

For a company to attract the capital necessary, the supply of timber products has to be assured for at least seven years, which is the pay-back period on the loan.

“Ask a bank to finance just a third of it, and if you’ve only secured fiber for one or two years, they’re going to show you the door,” he said.

This is where it gets tough for environmentalists. Their supporters don’t want to return to the time when pressure to assure a certain amount of timber — “get out the cut” — took precedence over protecting water quality and wildlife.

Oppenheimer and representatives of national environmental groups, like John McCarthy of the Wilderness Society’s Idaho office, have to bring their own constituencies along as they face these questions.

“There is a lot of forested ground where we can find agreement,” Oppenheimer said. “It’s not an all-or-nothing approach.

“But it takes time to build that trust to have more aggressive logging in some of these forests.”

PRESERVING A HEALTHY FOREST INDUSTRY

Last week, the Forest Service released a new set of forest planning rules designed to encourage restoration and collaboration, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said. The agency hopes to reduce the amount of litigation and the time and cost of planning.

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in an interview that the agency wants to support industry growth so it can strengthen communities and carry out its agenda.

“Without that industry,” said Tidwell, “there is no way we are going to be able to do the work we need to restore our forests.”

Note from Sharon: This is put on by the Idaho Environmental Forum, a group with a mission not unlike this blog.

The Idaho Environmental Forum is an informal, nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational association whose sole mission is to promote serious, cordial, and productive discourse on a broad range of environmental policies affecting Idaho. We take no positions, advocate no causes, and endorse no candidates. Our goal is simply to provide a forum for dialog from a range of perspectives.

I wonder if other states have groups like this? It will be interesting to see what comes from this meeting.