jfenwood

Monangahela National Forest/Park

by

Monangahela National Forest Park

Would the public interest be better served if parts of the Monongahela National Fores were administered by the National Park Service instead of the Forest Service? As Sharon mentions in her introduction to Chris Topik’s guest post, the Nature Conservancy has acquired and protected thousands of acres with the Monongahela.

Can the Park Service do a better job of managing them?

Meanwhile in Maine, State, Federal, and local governments have objected loudly to any suggestion that the Park Service conduct a feasibility study for a new National Park in Northern Maine to be created from land to be donated by Burt’s Bee’s magnate Roaxanne Quimby.

According to the Columbus, IN Republic

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Two state parks and other lands within the Monongahela National Forest could become a national park.

The National Park Service plans to begin conducting a survey in December to determine whether historic, natural and recreational resources in the targeted area would meet criteria required by Congress for a national park.

Friends of Blackwater Canyon executive director Judy Rodd tells the Charleston Gazette (http://bit.ly/uMIztk ) that the proposed High Alleghany National Park would include federal land in the forest’s northern area, Blackwater Falls and Canaan Valley state parks.

Rodd says the proposed park also would include lands improved during the Great Depression by the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration.

The survey is scheduled to be completed by September 2012. It was requested by U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin.

___

Information from: The Charleston Gazette, http://www.wvgazette.com

House and Senate Unite Under Legislation To Protect America’s Wild and Pristine Roadless Forests

by

From ENews Park Forest

Washington, D.C.–(ENEWSPF)–November 17, 2011.  On the heels of a landmark Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a broad group of senators and representatives introduced legislation today to make sure the administrative rule remains the law of the land—locking in protections for 58.5 million acres of America’s wildest and most pristine forests and waters for generations to come.
 

The Roadless Area Conservation Act, sponsored by 20 Senate and 111 bipartisan House co-sponsors, will confirm long-term protections against damaging commercial logging and road-building for vulnerable wildlands on 30 percent of the 193-million-acre National Forest System, shielding our Roadless areas from the political whims of future administrations.


This legislation highlights the strong congressional support for protecting America’s unique legacy of wild forests, despite a decade’s worth of attacks from an anti-environmental faction of Congress aiming to rollback Roadless protections. This legislation will also ensure that our Roadless protections are implemented across the nation—without exception.

NEPA, Climate Change, and Science-Denial

by

In 2009, The Forest Service issued guidance for “Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis”. The document states that “As with any environmental impact, GHG emissions and carbon cycling should be considered in proportion to the nature and scope of the Federal action in question and its potential to either affect emissions or be affected by climate change impacts.”

This week the State Department issued the final environmental impact statement for the controversial Keystone tar sands oil pipeline project. According to Shawn Lawrence Otto of the Huffington Post The environmental impact statement doesn’t mention the words “climate change.” This despite the fact that the project taps North America’ biggest pool of carbon.

I’m looking forward to reading Otto’s new book “Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. A gripping analysis of America’s anti-science crisis.” It ought to be more interesting than the Keystone EIS and might help me understand why that document never mentions climate change.

Letting “The Market” Decide

by
By NBC’s Jo Ling Kent

GILFORD, N.H. — After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.
“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.
“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

Fox News thinks that while we’re at it we should eliminate the National Weather Service as well.

Perhaps it’s time to also do away with “Federal” forests. We could just let “The Market” decide, couldn’t we? No need for Federal managers, ‘ologists, foresters, firefighters, and certainly not planners!

Should Numbers Count?

by

Over 7,000 people have signed an Earthjustice petition at change.org.  The Forest Service has always insisted that commenting on NEPA documents is not a numbers game.  Should it be?  The agency insists that substantive comments carry more weight that mass mailings.  Should they?  What do these 7,000 signatures really mean?

SIGNATURES

7,130

PETITIONING

U.S. Forest Service

SPONSORED BY

OVERVIEW

For nearly 30 years, some of the most prized and important waters and wildlife habitats have been protected by a federal rule that directs the management of our National Forests. But all of that could change with a proposed rule change that would leave wildlife and waters in peril.

Tell the Obama Administration and the Forest Service to strengthen – not weaken — this rule so that it guarantees protections for our National Forests.

In the United States, there are 155 National Forests, covering more than 190 million acres. National forest lands are the single largest source of drinking water in the nation, providing fresh water to some 124 million people. In addition to giving many of us the water we drink, our forests also are cherished grounds of our nation’s outdoor legacy.

Millions of Americans visit our National Forests each year to enjoy world-class hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and recreation activities, and many millions more rely on them for safe drinking water. Don’t let the Administration give up these precious resources by weakening the federal regulations.

Let the Administration and Forest Service know that we won’t stand by as federal rules damage our National Forests.

National Parks, I Mean Forests

by

From TreeHugger.com.  I know the Sierra Club clearly knows the difference, but note that the “Read more” links at the end of the piece all reference national parks. I wonder how many Americans are actually well-informed enough to comment critically on the draft planning rule?

An Opportunity to Protect Our National Forests

by Sarah Hodgdon, Sierra Club on 04.29.11

ozark national forest.jpg The Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas. Photo credit: Rhea S. Rylee, U.S. Forest Service.

Don Parks has been involved in protecting national forests since the 1970s. For him, they’re a place to take a nice hike to enjoy nature and relax. His favorite national forest is the Okanogan–Wenatchee because of its variety of forest-types.

Beyond relaxation and exercise, national forests provide a valuable lifeline for all Americans. “National Forest Service lands produce large quantities of domestic water, clean our air, and contain very important wildlife habitat,” said Parks, a lead volunteer for the Sierra Club in Seattle, Washington.

To protect our forests in a rapidly changing world we need to change how we think about forest use and conservation. Forest management policies put in place more than 20 years ago are no longer effective. My favorite national forest is the Pisgah in North Carolina—I can’t imagine not having it around.

Parks has joined many other forest activists in making sure the latest round of national forest management planning is done correctly. Right now the U.S. Forest Service has stepped forward with a landmark opportunity to prepare our national forests for climate change by proposing new protections to manage the water, wildlife, and other natural treasures American families enjoy and depend on.

Parks and many others spoke out for commonsense protections at one of the National Forest Service’s public hearing in Seattle last month. “We want to see the Forest Service manage for climate disruption,” explained Parks.

“We want them to be lighter in their touch – so we’re looking at the importance of wilderness designations and the retention of unroaded lands. These values help build resiliency in the climate changing world.”

Beyond the resiliency for animals and plants, the wildlife, clean water and scenery provided by our forests are crucial to supporting the nation’s $700 billion outdoor recreation economy and the people it employs.

Parks and the Sierra Club know that through working with the public, the forest service can develop a forest policy that safeguards the health, jobs and outdoor heritage of the American people.

Graham Taylor, a Sierra Club Conservation Organizer in the Northwest, said every American should care about how our national forests are managed. “Many Americans live by national forests, or recreate in them – that’s all impacted by how (the Forest Service) manages,” said Taylor.

“The management of our lands in any one aspect can affect all other aspects. Even the littlest decision we can make can have a huge impact.”

Parks sees that, which is why he’s been so active for national forests for several decades. “What happens on public land is a personal matter to me. I have seen to many poor decisions made on our public lands, development such a road building, timber sales, and off-road vehicle abuse. I want the Forest Service to act as true stewards and retain the natural values that make these lands special.”

You can help make sure the Forest Service creates a smart management plan. Take action today to tell the agency that helping natural and human communities adapt to the impacts of climate change should be the Forest Service’s top priority, with forest managers being given clear tasks, standards and guidelines to meet this tremendous challenge.

Read more about national parks:
25 US National Parks Under ‘Grave Threat’ From Climate Change
No Child Left Inside: Economist on National Parks
Are You a National Parks Wiz? (Quiz)

The End Of and Era– Wildlaw No More

by

Ray Vaughn, sometime contributor to this blog, has announced (in the letter which follows) that his organization Wildlaw, will soon cease to exist.  After many successful suits against the Forest Service, Ray decided a few years ago that, as much fun as suing and winning might be, it might be more satisfying to work cooperatively on ecological restoration projects.  Ray was able to put aside past  name-calling and even death threats (not from the Forest Service!) to collaborate with those who he had often opposed in the past.  His work with the National Forests in Alabama and elsewhere in the South stands as a model for collaboration in the management of public lands.

Good luck, Ray.  You would have made a great Undersecretary!

Dear Friends:

Many of you may have heard rumors about the future of WildLaw and what is happening with our organization.  Due to tough economic times drying up all our major funding sources and due to some other factors, WildLaw, quite simply, has no future; the organization is done and wrapping up operations.  WildLaw will cease operations on May 31, 2011, and after 25 years of public interest legal work, I am retiring.  This memo contains my thoughts and reflections on what an incredible journey WildLaw and I have had.

First, some details: WildLaw will close its Alabama and North Carolina offices on May 31.  Our Southern Forests Network program, headed by Alyx Perry, will continue on as a separate organization. Our Florida Office, headed by Brett Paben for more than a decade, has secured some independent, Florida-specific funding and will also continue as a separate organization.  As a legal entity, WildLaw will technically continue to exist for some time due to tax filing timing reasons, laws and regulations about retention of legal case documents, trademark and copyright reasons, and the like.  But, barring some miraculous change in its financial fortunes, it will not be an operational organization after May 31 and will be only a shell until such time as those various laws allow me to unincorporate it finally. And due to health reasons and a need for me to focus on finding a way to still be here for my family as my children enter their college years, I am retiring from the practice of public interest law.

WildLaw may now be done, but it has not failed.  Just because something ends does not mean it has failed, even if it ends sooner than you had thought it should or would.  After all, everything ends; every life ends.  Every human endeavor must end also.  WildLaw has been a success beyond my greatest hopes when I founded it.  That success remains, even if WildLaw will not.  I am sad to see the end of WildLaw and my work as a public interest attorney, but I do not regret what has happened.  The journey I have been on for the past 25 years has been incredible, a wonderful dream.  But even the best dreams end when one awakens to a new day.

Even a brief listing of some of WildLaw’s accomplishments is astounding and humbling for me.

  • More than 24,000,000 acres of public lands have been given increased protections due to our work.
  • Working on species as diverse as white-tailed deer to the rarest fish, birds and animals in the world, WildLaw has increased protections and led to better management for more than 135 species directly, and countless hundreds indirectly.
  • More than 2,000 miles of rivers, streams and coastal areas are cleaner.
  • More than 1,500,000 acres of public lands were protected from unwise oil and gas development.
  • Projects planning more than 500,000 acres of illegal and unsound logging on our public forests were stopped, and more importantly, more than 2,000,000 acres of scientifically-sound ecosystem restoration work was started on those public lands that need it.
  • We played a critical role in helping small loggers in the South who do good, ecologically-sound logging find work in the forests and markets for their timber, with WildLaw becoming the first nonprofit of our type in the South to become FSC certified.
  • Over the years, WildLaw played a critical role in helping to move the U.S. Forest Service from a management scheme of prioritizing commercial extraction to a paradigm of ecological restoration and conservation. While still ongoing, this historic and sweeping shift in agency policy and attitude started in Alabama, of all places, and I am very proud of the many great people in the agency with whom we have worked to help make this change happen.
  • More than 35,000 people of low-income, mostly-rural, under-represented communities throughout the South have been given a voice and a chance at a cleaner environment because of our environmental justice work.

WildLaw’s great success has been due to many, many people.  I cannot thank all of them here, but I will single out a few in particular.  I want to give my thanks to:

  • All our incredible staff.  Over the years, some 45 people have worked for WildLaw, and all of our success has been due to their passion, commitment and skill.  Special thanks to Steve, Brett, Jeanne, and Alyx, who led our various offices and programs for so many years.
  • All of our supporters.  Nonprofit work may not make a profit but it still must pay the bills to do the work.  All the people, groups and foundations who funded our work over the years share in all our success and accomplishments.  Special thanks to our most steadfast and understanding of funders, including Fred Stanback, Patagonia, Stuart Clarke and the Town Creek Foundation, the National Forest Foundation, The Moriah Fund, and the Mennen Environmental Foundation.
  • All our clients.  WildLaw has worked with more than 250 environmental and community groups of all sizes and thousands of individuals who fight for a better world instead of a quick buck.  All of you are inspirations, and it has been a high honor to represent you and make your cause our cause.
  • All our partners.  Fighting to make the world a better place can be a lonely trail at times, but to find other people and groups who will fight alongside you makes a big difference.  There is strength in numbers, and many can do more than just one or a few.  Because with environmental protection work being so much more than just litigation, often many of our clients were also partners in our conservation work outside the courtroom.  Many fellow attorneys and legal organizations worked with us over the years.  Thanks to all of you, and I am sorry that we will not be there with you in the future.
  • All our honorable opponents.  Too many times in this day and age, it is customary to demonize those with whom you disagree or who have different interests and goals.  Fighting for reasonable environmental protections is hard enough, but to have those who disagree with you also demean, insult or literally try to hurt you makes it so much worse.  I lost count of the death threats I have received over the years, and our offices were broken into five times.  In light of the evil thrown at us by some, I truly appreciate all the opposing counsel, corporate staff and government officials who were professional and kind, even in midst of strong disagreement on how to address an issue.  We are all human beings, not demons and angels, and I am grateful for the opponents who remembered that, and especially those who helped me to remember that.  Some whom I opposed in court became friends in person, and I am very thankful for those friendships and all that I have learned from these exceptional people.
  • All the special people inside and outside of WildLaw who made this work possible.  This includes: our longtime Board President and inspiration Lamar Marshall.  Sara O’Neal, for invaluable help in getting WildLaw set up and then funded during tough times.  Rick Middleton and all the folks at the Southern Environmental Law Center for blazing the eco-legal trail in the South, the mentoring, the co-counsel work in important cases and even for the friendly rivalry we had at times.  Ned Mudd for the friendship, guidance and grounding.  Dave Foreman, who believed in me when almost no one else did. Mark Rey, who epitomizes the best in professionalism, intelligence, wisdom and friendship.
  • Most especially, thanks go to my wife, Louise.  Without her, I would have had no reason to fight for a better world, and without her support, understanding and quiet counsel, WildLaw would have never happened and succeeded like it did. Thanks also to my children, Ned, Trey and Beth, who always told me how cool a dad I am because of the work I do and who always gave me encouragement instead of the typical reaction a father gets when talking to his kids about his work.  Also, many thanks to my Mom, Betty Vaughan, who supported me and WildLaw, despite all her worrying.
  • Finally, and at the risk of sounding corny, but so what, thanks be to God.  Everything in life is a gift, and WildLaw and this work have been gifts beyond measure. I know too many attorneys and people in other professions whose work is a chore, nothing more than a means to make money to do the things they would rather be doing.  Working to protect the environment and help people live better lives are all I have ever wanted to do.  Unlike so many people, I got to do what I wanted; it was not easy and ultimately I had to create the job I wanted.  But, as Thoreau said, I got to live the life I dreamed by doing work that had real meaning.  My work this past quarter century has been a true gift, a blessing, a mission, a passion, and a meaningful life for which I am very grateful. If I have made a difference in this world, it is because God has made a difference in me, and with me.

So, once again, many thanks to all of you whom I have worked with and for these many years.  I am sure we will see each other from time to time, especially if I ever get that experimental brain surgery I need (but my insurance will not pay for).  See, for all those who ever wondered whether I was “not right in the head” for doing this work, you were right.

Feel free to share this with anyone you like.

God bless you all,

Ray Vaughan

Founder and Executive Director

WildLaw

“Your bridges are burning now.

“They’re all coming down;

“It’s all coming ‘round.”

–         Foo Fighters

Time for a Bold Statement?

by

It’s starting to look like “A New Century of Forest Planning” may ultimately come to refer to the hundred years or so it takes to get a new planning rule implemented. Will the “Hundred Years War” come to signify the length of the timber wars?

Way back in the 1900’s, Chief Dale Robertson was convinced that a bold policy statement was necessary to address the big concern of the day– clearcutting of national forests.  In a policy letter (not the best way to make policy, but a lot quicker than rule-making), Dale established that clearcuttting would no longer be the primary means of regeneration on national forest lands. There were howls of protest from silviculturists and tree-improvement specialists. There were exceptions for species like Jack Pine and Sand Pine.   There certainly was no end to the timber wars, but it was a start down a path towards armistice.

Getting a new planning rule implemented will take more than just agreement about the wording of the rule.  It’s going to require an environment that will insure the intent of that wording can be carried out. Perhaps now is an appropriate time for the current Chief to make some bold statements.

My suggestions are:

1.       Declare that restoration of ecosystem resiliency is not just an important part of the mission; it’s the most important part.

Management actions would be all about producing desired ecological conditions in order to restore and maintain resilient ecosystems and help protect human communities from undesirable things like intense wildfires in the wrong places or downstream impacts from deteriorating road systems.  There would be no need to calculate ASQ or argue about “lands unsuitable for timber production”. (There may still be a need to “zone” for other uses.) “Below-cost” timber sales would no longer be a meaningful calculation.  And, if the South is any indication, a lot more timber would become available for local mills.

2.       Declare that planning at all levels will be a truly open and collaborative process.

All phases of planning would be “open source” with draft documents and supporting information easily accessible on-line.  Raw data from inventories and monitoring as well as interpreted data, maps, and models would be open to all. I can’t think of any other policy change that would do more to improve the level of trust among stakeholders.  A side benefit would be a tremendous savings in responding to FOIA requests.

3.       Declare that the Forest Service will commit to a process of establishing a shared vision for the entire agency.

With the National Forest System, Research, and State and Private Forestry all working towards shared goals, using an “all lands” approach, imagine what might be accomplished at landscape scales?  This is the sort of partnership between managers and scientists that will be needed to truly ensure that “best science” is incorporated into decisions at all levels.

Are these declarations really all that bold?  Not really, The Forest Service has been moving in these directions since before Dale Robertson penned his letter.  A clear commitment to these principles might be what’s needed to finally move the National Forest System into the New Century.

Planning for Fire: Beyond Appropriate Management Response

by

In 2009, I had the opportunity to be involved in an effort known as the Quadrennial Fire Review.  Here is an excerpt from the final report explaining what the effort is about.

The Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR) is a strategic assessment process that is conducted every four years to evaluate current mission strategies and capabilities against best estimates of the fu­ture environment for fire management. This integrated review is a joint effort of the five federal natural resource management agencies and their state, local, and tribal partners that constitute the wildland fire community. The objective is to create an integrated strategic vision document for fire management.

The document provides a solid foundation for policy discussions within the federal agencies and, importantly, among the federal agencies and state, local, tribal, and other partners. While the QFR is not a formal policy or decision document, it sets the stage for a “strategic conversation” about future direction and change in fire management.

Several assumptions underlie the document’s analysis and conclusions:

The effects of climate change will continue to result in greater probability of longer and bigger fire seasons, in more regions in the nation.

Cumulative drought effects will further stress fuels accumulations.

There will be continued wildfire risk in the Wildland Urban Interface despite greater public awareness and broader involvement of communities.

Emergency response demands will escalate.

A lot of discussion in the document is devoted to “appropriate management response” sometimes miscategorized by the public as “let burn.”

The first QFR core strategy outlines a course forward that moves beyond appropriate management response to strategic management response that creates a framework for a multi-phased approach for incident management. Elements within strategic management response will include ensuring proactive wildland fire decisions with greater transparency and accountability, recalibrating fire planning, and establishing more robust fire outcome metrics.

Appropriate management response is often referred to as common sense fire management, but what may seem like common sense to one set of decision makers can easily run afoul of other stakeholders and decision makers with different missions, competing objectives, and conflicting perspectives on situation information. Moving to strategic management response is designed to ensure a higher level of transparency, accountability, and support for specific fire decisions and to better display the costs and benefits of suppression strategies. This approach would weigh factors such as suppression costs and value of resources lost against the value of ecosystems restored and improved and infrastructure protected.

Some questions:

Is there evidence that   the Forest Service has embraced the concept of strategic management response?

What kind of public involvement/collaboration will be needed to implement such an approach?

Can those who have opposed appropriate management response find something to like in strategic management response?

Does the the new planning rule provide appropriate guidance regarding the relationship of forest plans to fire suppression strategies?

Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees

by

If I were a visitor from another planet, who having read some of the recent posts to this blog, wanted to understand what all the fuss about things like “viability” is about, I might look to the Forest Service homepage for guidance.  There I would learn that “The mission of the USDA 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.” Pretty straightforward so far.  Looking for more of what these things called “national forests” are all about, I would learn that the agency’s “Motto” “Caring for the Land and Serving People” means, among other things, “Protecting and managing the National Forests and Grasslands so they best demonstrate the sustainable multiple-use management concept.” I would get confused though because I read that the mission also includes things like “Listening to people and responding to their diverse needs in making decisions.” And although I would agree that that is an absolutely essential thing to do, I wouldn’t be able to find anything in any law that says that is part of the agency’s mission.  You might say that I was nit-picking, but fortunately we don’t have nits on my home planet.

Reading on through the Forest Service “Vision” wouldn’t help either.  I might find lots of nice statements about “a caring and nurturing environment” where “employees are respected, accepted, and appreciated”, but I wouldn’t find anything about how the agency thinks the national forests should look in the future if it did a good job at carrying out its mission.

If I did a bit of Googling, I could learn that some pretty smart scientists have been thinking about new and better ways to plan and monitor and that they presented some of these ideas at the Forest Service Science Forum. [Full disclosure– I wouldn’t actually have to Google it since I was the principle author of the final report for the forum]. Some of these scientists pointed out, however, that “. . . while science can help inform decision-making processes, it is most appropriately applied first in a context of shared agreement on the agency goals that will drive management decisions.”

In the absence of shared agreement in the form of a clearly articulated and widely shared vision for the future of the national forests, even an alien can see why a number of conservation organizations insist that the proposed rule doesn’t go far enough to require actions to ensure important things like species viability.

Despite the trees, that forest is evident even to a visitor from outer space.