We’ve been discussing the Shared Stewardship Agreements and the concept of joint priority-setting with the State. Which reminded me of many years ago when I worked in Region 2, there was thinking that partnerships were the way to go. If I remember correctly, the thinking was something like “we’ll never get all the funding we need to do the work that’s needed, so we should use partnerships.) For our partisan friends out there, this was an observation (not enough funding) based on decades of different R/D combos in the Executive Branch and Congress.
Even back in those long-ago days, some Forest Supes raised questions… “but what if the partnerships change the Forest’s priorities?” I think that particular discussion was about the Forests to Faucets partnership with Denver Water. Denver Water has an important role in providing water to Coloradans, and brought funding to the table.
Which raises another question… “should bringing funding to the table change FS priorities?”. For example,
SE Group was contracted by Willow Brook Metropolitan District (WBMD) in 2021 assist WBMD and the White River National Forest (WRNF) Dillon Ranger District with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for 33 acres of fuels treatments on National Forest System lands. The area proposed for treatment is located near Silverthorne, Colorado, adjacent to WBMD’s Ruby Ranch Subdivision, and entirely within the Eagles Nest Wilderness.
Aside: the Wilderness part is kind of interesting, especially since that’s an issue in another project I was looking at recently. Apparently it was done with a CE, but was only 33 acres. The photo above gives you an idea of the area.
In March 2020 a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) was completed by Forest Service staff to help make the determination that an administrative action is necessary in wilderness and to design a project that preserves wilderness character and represents the “minimum necessary” action. SE Group’s subconsultants completed cultural, wildlife, botany, and wetlands and waters of the U.S. field survey and reporting of the area in the summer of 2021.
Recently, we’ve seen a variety of other kinds of financial cooperation..this agreement for example, which is not characterized as “Forest Service Gives Control to DOD”.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KOAA) — The U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Defense are launching a 10-year partnership to prevent wildfire risk around the Air Force Academy and Cheyenne Mountain Space Force Station.
The $7.3 million investment from the DOD will treat 2,000 acres of National Forest System land and non-federal lands near the two military installations. The partnership aims to do the following:
- remove unhealthy trees
- reduce dangerous fuels
- create firebreaks
- control lines
The following agencies partnered for the project:
-
Colorado Springs Fire Department
-
Forest Service
-
Colorado State Forest Service
-
Colorado Springs Utilities
-
Air Force Civil Engineer Center
-
U.S. Army
-
Palmer Land Conservancy
-
Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments
Or this $2.5 mill of Colorado State funding for recreation work around Pike’s Peak.
It seems to me that if say, Trout Unlimited brings money to the table for a particular project, that would increase the priority of that particular project, as the FS can get more watershed improvement done for the same dollars. Or fuel treatment, or whatever. Why would setting priorities with the State be any different? or is it?
“increase the priority of that particular project”
Would that decrease the priority, and take away resources from, other projects that an agency thinks are more important? Does the agency actually have a list of its priorities for where to do projects? Or is it just – anything that contributes to achieving forest plan desired conditions is really equal priority? I’ve always thought there should be more transparency about how projects (i.e. their location) become a priority for plan implementation.