21st Century Problems

RPA Assessment Released

by

2010-assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 RPA Assessment Talking Points 17 Dec 2012

2010_RPA_Key_Findings_Dec2012

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

Report:“National Forest Health Restoration: An Economic Assessment of Forest Restoration on Oregon’s Eastside National Forests.”

by

report

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one.
In the interests of transparency, I’d like to try to establish some background information on these kinds of reports.

Who wanted it: This report was done at the behest of Governor Kitzhaber.
Who produced and funded it: “The report was assembled with funding and guidance from conservation groups, government agencies, academic institutions and business trade associations.”

Here is the link to an article about it (including a link to the document and a four page summary).

Below is an excerpt from the story.

The report looks at doubling the number of acres of east-side national forestland that undergo restoration – such as selective harvest, thinning and underbrush removal – from 129,000 annually to 250,000. Doing so, the report states, could create an additional 2,300 jobs in eastern and south central Oregon. The study says every $1 million invested in restoration generates $5.7 million in economic returns.

The work brings timber to struggling mills, provides jobs, and restores fire resiliency to the forest, the report states. Because of fire suppression, historic practices and passive management, some dry-side federal forests are choked with as many as 1,000 trees per acre, where historically about 75-100 trees per acre were typical. Some 80 percent of the 11.4 million acres of east-side forests under U.S. Forest Service management are at moderate to high risk of devastating crown fires.

The report highlights the importance of local collaboratives – in which government, industry and conservation interests work together to plan and implement restoration jobs.

Wanted: Leader for Peacemaking in Federal Lands/Environmental Issues

by

Andy had another great idea in his comments here.

Let’s imagine an MLK or Gandhi of our world… what would she/he look like? What would he/she do? Maybe what we’re missing is some kind of leadership. Seeking peace and justice through compassion and non-violence.. what would that look like in our relatively puny microcosm of the world?

And the flip side, what keeps you or I or Andy or Bob from becoming that kind of visionary leader?

Agriculture Secretary Scolds Rural Folks

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let it burn? Federal agencies draft national wildland fire strategy

by

NC_08-07-04_0520

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one..
Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

I thought that this was interesting..

The national strategy suggests three big goals: Restore fire-adapted landscapes. Protect communities. Suppress fire. And it provides three tools: An unprecedented gathering of fire science data. A mapping project to visualize that information throughout the country. And a risk trade-off analysis to make sense of it all.

The data has been piling up for the past three years. The maps have progressed at the same time. The risk analysis should be ready next June.

For Ann Walker at the Western Governors Association, the strategy is a chance to make some practical decisions. “Everybody has to come to the table,” Walker said. “This is not a partisan issue. We’ve lost lives. We’ve lost homes. We’re not considering wildfire on the same scale as tornados and tsunamis and hurricanes, but we have huge ability to change that path. One key thing we need is to get to a healthy level of active federal forest management.”
One way to do that is to mix more commercial timber cutting into hazardous fuels reduction projects, Walker said. Clearing brush and burning slash doesn’t pay for itself – it must be taxpayer funded. But combining those fire safety projects with sawlog acreage in landscape-scale stewardship contracts could improve the balance sheet. “We need to do a much higher level of harvesting, and even with the current environmental protections in place we can do that,” Walker said. “There have to be viable commercial timber sales to pay for the rest of the work that needs to be done.”

Improving the market to use slash wood as biomass for airplane fuel would also help, Walker said. So would consolidating the checkerboard ownership of forests that jumbles federal agencies, state governments and private entities in a confused and inefficient management tangle.

Many of those suggestions have found a home in the draft wildfire strategy. They’re also the elements that give environmental advocates like Arlene Montgomery of Friends of the Wild Swan the most heartburn.
For example, the strategy proposes greater use of “categorical exclusions” to speed up large-scale landscape management plans. “I don’t think this rises to the level of categorical exclusion when we’re talking about big landscapes like this or threatened and endangered species protection,” said Arlene Montgomery of Friends of the Wild Swan. “Categorical exclusions were for things like painting an outhouse or cleaning a campground. This seems to go beyond that.”

Montgomery said her group was one of several suing the Forest Service for its use of a categorical exclusion to do pre-commercial thinning on 3,600 acres in the Flathead National Forest.
“They didn’t even have maps where the units were so you could find them,” Montgomery said. “If it’s categorically excluded, you wouldn’t find that ever. What if it was in lynx or bull trout habitat? If you’re doing that under the mantra of fire strategy, that’s not good policy.”

Matthew Koehler of the Wild West Institute in Missoula accused the strategy drafters of ignoring calls to put preservation ahead of harvesting. “I will say that based on the list of people who are part of the Western Community Fire Management Working Group (participants in the strategy’s public review process) there certainly aren’t very many dedicated activists from the forest protection community on the list,” Koehler said in an email. “The list, perhaps with an exception or two, seems more like a group of people who have long since attempted to increase logging of our public lands, decrease citizen oversight and have been critical of most efforts to hold the Forest Service accountable when it comes to law, regulations and science.”

A couple of thoughts

First, did Ms. Walker really jump straight from “using wood” to “airline jet fuel”. Maybe she said “an array of uses, including airline jet fuel.” A couple of presentations at SAF dealt with the idea that it is more efficient to use wood for heating than to convert it to biofuels. Still with people getting millions to study E.coli (not the pathogenic one).. as here. I’m getting the idea that using wood for heat just doesn’t have the high-tech component that research panels find appealing. Which would be a sad story for technology development in this country.

Second, CE’s exist and are part of the NEPA regulations. *Warning: below may get a little NEPA-geeky.

The quote goes ” “Categorical exclusions were for things like painting an outhouse or cleaning a campground. “. When in actuality, they are for many things. You can want this not to be the case, but then you should say “I don’t agree with CEQ that it is OK to establish a category for x or y.”

When the quote goes like the above, it sounds as if the FS is violating its NEPA procedures, which is different from a person not agreeing with the NEPA procedures as described in regulation (which had public comment).

In fact, NPS has one for herbicide application. In terms of endangered species, there are “extraordinary circumstances” in the NEPA regulations. Also there are the ESA regulations themselves.

Then she is quoted as saying ““They didn’t even have maps where the units were so you could find them,” Montgomery said. “If it’s categorically excluded, you wouldn’t find that ever.” That doesn’t make any sense as quoted. Plenty of people use CE’s and have maps of units.

Anyway, interesting comments on some of our usual subjects.

I found some public domain fire photos on the NIFC website… worth checking out..here.

Studies Conclude Forests Facing A Bleak, Dry Future: From Payson Roundup

by

thinnedPines

We have discussed many studies on this blog, but I don’t remember this one.. anyone have more info on it? Here’s a link to the (article?op-ed?couldn’t tell) in the Payson Roundup.

The first study, published in Forest Ecology and Management, concluded that uncontrolled crown fires racing through thick stands of unthinned timber pose a grave danger to the northern spotted owl, an old-growth forest dependent raptor long at the center of the timber wars.

#The researchers from Oregon State University and Michigan State University concluded that after a century of suppressing fires and allowing unnaturally thick stands of timber to grow, the Forest Service has dramatically changed the impact of fire.

#Instead of frequent, low-intensity fires that cleared out deadwood and saplings, millions of acres now face the threat of intense, soil-sterilizing fires that will consume the old-growth reserves set aside for the spotted owls.

#Historically, ground fires burn through debris on the floor of old-growth forests, without climbing into the lower branches of the big trees. However, in a forest crowded with saplings, fire climbs into the tops of the big trees and spreads from treetop to treetop. As a result, fires start in the forests crowded with saplings then spread into the treetops of even old-growth patches set aside to protect endangered species like goshawks and spotted owls — which do best hunting under a closed forest canopy.

#John Baily, with Oregon State University, observed that the Forest Service for “many years” has “avoided almost all management on many public lands.”

#He said that the Forest Service has been “kicking the can down the road,” which makes eventual “stand replacing” fires inevitable. “Sooner or later a stand replacing fire will come that we can’t put out. Then the fires are enormous.”

#The Wallow Fire in the White Mountains in 2011 consumed more than 500 square miles of forest, including many designated critical habitat areas for Mexican spotted owls. Only thinned buffer areas saved communities like Alpine.

Parts of The Corporate Recreation Industry vs. Utah Elected Officials

by

adv_OIAPAC_logo

We have had much discussion about “corporations” when it comes to oil and gas and timber. The situation with the Outdoor Industry Association is an another industry association lobbying, and with its own PAC. They seem to be lobbying, in this case, to get rid of the messy and seemingly interminable place-by-place public processes in land management planning for public lands. It seems to this observer that if the idea of place-based bills in Congress is bad, then the idea of unilateral “monumenting” is possibly just as or more bad. Seems to me like you should be consistent about which public process you prefer.

Here is a link to a news article.
Here is a link to the Blue Ribbon Coalition side of the story. and an excerpt below. The whole section on this by BRC is worth reading to those interested in both sides of the story. Thanks to BRC for doing a quality job on explaining their point of view.

Thanks to them for the SUWA link which says..

To protect these scenic landscapes, in March of 2011 SUWA –along with members of the Greater Canyonlands Coalition including Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and Coloradans for Utah Wilderness — made a formal request to the Secretary of the Interior requesting that Secretary Salazar bar off-road vehicle (“ORV”) use on 1,050 miles of ORV route in sensitive habitat, streams, wetlands, riparian areas, archaeological sites and other vulnerable areas until it can conduct further studies on the impacts of the activity and determine whether it is, in fact, a sustainable use. The petition would leave open 1,400 miles of ORV route within the petition area, and about 13,000 miles of routes open in the four BLM field offices surrounding Greater Canyonlands.

Unfortunately, in August 2011 the Obama administration refused to host a public discussion on protecting the Greater Canyonlands region. Even worse, it claims the management plans written by the Bush administration already provide adequate protection. These are the same Bush plans that designated more than 3,000 miles of off-road vehicle trails in proposed redrock wilderness.

It seems to me that “designating trails” is different from “off trail abuse.> This could lead to fruitful dialogue, I bet, between SUWA or OIA and BRC. Now I am not a particular aficionado of OHVs myself, but it seems to be you could get a lot more off trail abuse stopped if you collaborated with folks out there, instead of trying to kick them out. But maybe that’s me, because I figure most people are reasonable. And we want our kids in the woods, and family recreation, and I see a lot of that happening with OHV’s.

Again, I wonder what wonderful things we all could do for outdoor recreation if groups weren’t going around spending energies stabbing other recreationists in the back? If a ranger can do it on a district (as described here), why can’t someone do it at the national level?

A spokesperson for Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said the state does not want to see a reprise of the 1996 designation of a 1.9 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by President Clinton. Said Ally Isom, deputy chief of staff and spokesperson for Herbert, in a statement provided to PLN, “No one has formally approached the Governor or his office about a proposed monument in Utah. We certainly hope we don’t have another Bill Clinton approach to creating a monument. Canyonlands National Park was established by statute and any expansion ought to be rightly created by statute involving all interested parties, including Utah stakeholders.”

Utah’s Congressional Delegation was also kept in the dark regarding OIA’s proposal. They learned about it only after local media called requesting comments on OIA’s letter.

Utah’s Senator’s Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, joined with Utah’s Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz in a letter urging President Obama not to establish a new National Monument.
“We are opposed to efforts to create national monuments within the state of Utah by presidential decree. Federal land-use decisions must be cultivated in a collaborative process that balances various stakeholder uses and priorities.”…. “We are opposed to this petition because it flies in the face of the collaborative process outlined above. Federal land-use designations affect a wide-range of stakeholders and each group should have a seat at the table.” … “Again, we strongly urge the rejection of the most recent — and all future — petitions for national monument designations by presidential decree.”

More on this tomorrow.

Two Stewardship Contracts in Colorado- Including Wood for Energy

by

Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

“Not only will these contracts help us alleviate the impacts of the mountain pine beetle infestation and reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire, but they also will offer a supply of woody biomass that will be used to produce low-cost heat and a clean, renewable source of electricity,” said Harris Sherman, under secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

Scott Fitzwilliams, supervisor of the White River National Forest, said the work will help restore the landscape as well as produce wood products for everything from lumber to wood pellets to power plant fuel.

West Range Reclamation will remove lodgepole and ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, Engleman spruce and aspen and other tree species susceptible to insect and disease infestations.

The contract is the latest for a forest management company that has completed more than 300 contracts and 70,000 acres of range and forest projects on public and private land in five western states.

“The continued stability of the 10-year project will allow West Range to provide well-paying, steady, year-round work for our current employees and the ability to hire more skilled operators,” said Pam Motley of West Range Reclamation.

“We also intend to do our part to help strengthen local economies by purchasing products and services — such as fuel, food, housing, tools, parts, supplies, rentals and repair services — from local businesses,” Motley added.

Part of the wood removed during the treatments will provide fuel for a 11.5-megawatt power plant planned for Gypsum.

Eagle Valley Clean Energy plans to build the woody biomass plant to supply electricity to Holy Cross Energy and, in turn, an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 homes in Western Colorado.

Heat generated at the power plant will support the operation of an adjacent wallboard factory.

The USDA Rural Utilities Service announced in October a $40 million loan guarantee to help finance the plant.

Eagle Valley Clean Energy estimates the plant will create 107 construction jobs and 41 permanent jobs.

Confluence Energy will remove beetle-killed trees. Where commercially practical, the wood will be used for lumber, wood pellets and other products. The company will pay for those materials to offset the cost of the removal project.

And from another article here..

“The stewardship contracts are especially exciting because it will add to Colorado’s balance of clean, renewable energy by supporting biomass energy — electricity and heat for Eagle Valley Clean Energy in Gypsum and wood pellets for clean and efficient heating at Confluence Energy in Kremmling,” Udall said in the release.

and

“Active management of our multiple use national forest acreage in Colorado is vital as we confront the bark beetle epidemic and grow our forest products industries,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., in a news release. “After a summer of devastating wildfires, there’s an even greater urgency to ensure that our forests are healthy and resilient.

Our elected officials and political appointees in the Department seem to agree this is a good thing to have jobs. to reduce the use of fossil fuels, to reduce the costs of fuel treatments, and to use natural resources in a sustainable way..any nay-sayers out there?

For those who follow the coal mine litigation (could coal be the “new timber”? ) wars, Holy Cross Energy is also the one who partnered with Aspen Ski Co to use methane that would otherwise be vented from coal mines (Elk Creek). Here’s a link with more information. Meanwhile, since at least 2007, methane has been vented while some people worked on litigation and some potential legislative fixes. You gotta applaud people who “just do it.” Props to you Holy Cross and Aspen Skico. Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

Holy Cross’s challenge, as the power purchaser, was to arrange transmission from the mine. “The electricity had to be wheeled over medium-voltage distribution lines to a TriState [Generation and Transmission Association] substation, then across Western and Xcel Energy transmission lines,” said Hildred. “We weren’t sure in what order we needed to talk to people. DMEA [Delta Montrose Energy Association], the owner of the line that supplies power to the mine, had never dealt with anything like this before.”

All of the parties proved cooperative, so Holy Cross was able to sort out the distribution without encountering too many barriers. The utility signed the power purchase agreement and DMEA built a substation with a short extension to the 44-kV line.

Of course, no project happens without funding, and the developer was fortunate in finding an “angel” with an interest in alternative energy. Randy Udall, a sustainable energy advocate and former executive director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, happened to be at Vessels’s first meeting with Holy Cross Energy. “Afterward, Randy asked me if we were seeking partners and gave me the number of the sustainability director for Aspen Skiing Company,” Vessels recalled.

The innovative project appealed to the ski resort owner with its long history of supporting environmental causes, and the company put up the bulk of the funding to build the Elk Creek facility. “Aspen Skiing Company and Holy Cross Energy deserve accolades for seeing beyond the end of their noses,” declared Vessels.

I wonder what other issues would benefit from the “just do it” approach as opposed to years of litigation or unsuccessful federal legislation attempts?

Forest to Faucet Partnership- Denver Water

by

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one…
Here’s the link.

By Jim Lochhead
and Dan Jirón
Guest Commentary

National Forest lands serve as the primary source of water that sustains cities and farmlands up and down the Front Range. This summer’s tragic wildfire season, fueled by heat and drought, once again demonstrated that catastrophic wildfires can wreak havoc on our watersheds and have devastating impact on life and property.

Fires impact water supply and water quality by increasing flows of sediment, debris and ash into streams and rivers, requiring emergency measures at treatment plants and millions of dollars to repair damage to habitat, reservoirs and facilities. Today, Colorado Springs and communities in the Fort Collins area are facing the immediate and long-term impacts from the Waldo Canyon and High Park Fires on their water supplies.

More than 10 years ago, the Buffalo Creek and Hayman fires brought to the forefront the need to work more closely together to tackle the impact of wildfires on Denver’s most critical water supply. We learned that our water infrastructure is more than pipes and dams. For Denver Water, our infrastructure encompasses more than 2 million acres of forested land in eight counties. Our investment in these watersheds is a long-term commitment to keeping them healthy decades from now.

We can’t prevent fire from occurring, but healthy forests can reduce the threat of catastrophic fire, like we experienced this year. Denver Water and the U.S. Forest Service have for decades worked side-by-side to care for the watersheds that provide water to Colorado citizens and Denver Water’s customers. Two years ago we forged a partnership — called “From Forests to Faucets” — to work in high-priority watersheds to accelerate forest health treatments that promote healthier, more resilient forests, reduce wildfire risks, restore burned areas and lessen erosion into reservoirs.

Last week, Denver Water and the U.S. Forest Service signed the third annual commitment of funds in support of this partnership. Together, we are focused on treating and restoring 38,000 acres of National Forest System lands in five priority watersheds including the Upper South Platte, South Platte headwaters, Colorado River headwaters, St. Vrain and Blue River. Since the From Forests to Faucets partnership began in 2010, we are currently treating nearly 17,000 acres.

In the Indian Creek drainage near the Rampart recreation area on the Pike National Forest, crews have treated more than 600 acres by removing ground fuels and thinning trees and reducing the threat and impacts of wildfire in the area. Near Dillon Reservoir, which is part of the Blue River Watershed on the White River National Forest, we’ve treated 600 acres, and 1,400 acres will be treated in 2013. Treatments include removing bark beetle-affected trees around the reservoir, while leaving the cut trees on the ground to support the next generation of forest.

The critical work done in these priority watersheds means improved water quality for Denver Water customers and millions of downstream water users, and healthier ecosystems, which benefit forest visitors and wildlife. While our current agreement focuses on reaching specific goals by 2015, we recognize that we’ll be working together for decades to come.

We are extremely proud of the work accomplished to date to protect our National Forest lands. The outcome of pulling our resources together, prioritizing work within critical watersheds, and putting people to work on the ground to improve water quality and quantity makes a real difference for Denver Water customers, forest visitors, and the ecosystem. We feel strongly that this partnership is a replicable example for future opportunities to approach critical watershed and forest restoration with partners that can only gain from what each can bring to the table.

Jim Lochhead is CEO and manager of Denver Water. Dan Jirón is a regional forester with the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

I wonder why this water partnerships like this are a New Mexico/Colorado phenomenon and not a California/Montana phenomenon? Maybe I just don’t know about them elsewhere? Maybe the lack of a forest industry means that these things can happen without the timber wars ghosts? Ideas?

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

On EAJA:

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

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


What do you think of these ideas for the future?

Of “Gordian Knots” and “Certain Trumpets”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posewitz (2008:11) opined:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sedjo (2000b) recognized that the FS

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

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

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

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

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