21st Century Problems

Utah’s Sagebrush Rebellion Awakens

by

In September Char Miller didn’t give much credit to what he called Rob Bishop’s “Sputtering Sagebrush Rebellion“, [KCET’s “The Back Forty”, 09/21/2011]. Miller suggested that the rebellion might backfire in two ways, first by challenging President Obama to follow Bill Clinton’s lead by either invoking the Antiquities Act to establish yet-another national monument at the end of his term of office, or by helping to rally voters in favor of retaining both the public lands in federal ownership and Obama in the White House come November. But Utah’s Governor Hebert and Utah’s predominantly Republican legislators seem intent on pursuing this “Sagebrush Rebellion” at least as election-year politics, and maybe as a means to gain traction in the upcoming battle over federal education dollars in what we’ve called the “Secure Rural Schools” or “County Payments” debate that will heat up this summer. [Note: Rob Bishop is Chair of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, US House of Representatives.] A little more on the issue:

(From Ogden Standard-Examiner, Showdown Looms over Utah’s Public Lands, [02/27/2012])

There are four bills now in front of the Utah House of Representatives that form the basis of a legal challenge to the federal government’s right to control approximately two-thirds of the land in the state. The bills invoke promises dating back to when Utah gained statehood in 1896.

One resolution, sponsored by Rep. Roger Barrus, R-Centerville, calls for the federal government to turn over control of the land to the state by Dec. 31, 2014. …

To gain statehood, the Utah Enabling Act contained language stipulating that, as federal lands were transferred to the state, where they could then generate tax revenue, 5 percent of the funds would go to a trust fund for education. Most of the land has never left federal hands, and subsequently, the revenue stream has never developed. A number of officials claim that is why Utah ranks near the bottom of per-pupil funding.
U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, says the land debate raises big constitutional issues. He cites notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in which Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts who would become the fifth vice president of the U.S., worried that federal control of land within a state would allow the federal government to force states to give “humble obedience” to the government.

“That concern 225 years ago still remains today. If you give too much land to the federal government, and let them hold it, and let them declare it (tax) exempt, you have a problem,” Lee said. He said Utah students and teachers deserve the revenue the land should be generating. Lee said Utahns also deserve the right to be on equal footing with other states that have few federal land holdings within their borders.

U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, estimated in 2011 the revenue the state could generate by being able to impose a small tax on federal land holdings. He suggested that placing a fair tax on those properties, if they are not returned to the private sector, could provide a financial boon to education. He said even sagebrush property taxed at its lowest rate could potentially generate $116 million a year for the state. …

He said the land-use paradigms at the federal level change about every 40 or 50 years. He said it has been almost 50 years since the last change, and he thinks the Legislature’s efforts could be very timely.

“It is time, it is ripe for that discussion,” Bishop said.

[Rep. Roger Barrus, R-Centerville] said he and other lawmakers are prepared for a drawn-out dispute with the federal government. He expects neighboring states, including Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Nevada, to join the fray as well. He said the federal government has just not kept its promises. He likened the problem to the issue facing early colonists in America who had a feudal landlord in Great Britain.

[Update: March 23] Utah Governor Signs Bill Demanding Federal Lands

Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill Friday that demands the federal government relinquish control of public lands in Utah by 2014, setting the table for a potential legal battle over millions of acres in the state. …

What do They Really Want?
While working up this post I ran into an expose of the late-1970s—early-1980s Sagebrush Rebellion, by Frank J. Popper titled “A Timely End of the Sagebrush Rebellion” (pdf), National Affairs 76, Summer 1984. Popper suggests that in the end the “Rebels” may have won a victory from what seemed to many a loss, in part by opening up the process of slowly selling some of the federal lands. It’s a point to ponder, when trying to figure out today’s Rebels want as they prepare for “a drawn-out dispute with the federal government” for control of lands they probably don’t really want—if they stop to think about it. To Popper:

The Sagebrush Rebellion did not fail—it ended because it achieved many of its goals. The Reagan administration rapidly found clever, politically appealing ways to start to transfer some public lands without having to ask Congress for new legislation. Watt’s Interior Department undertook a “good neighbor policy” that allowed state and local governments to request the department’s “surplus” lands. The initiative was soon broadened to an Asset Management Program whereby all federal agencies could sell their excess land in the West and elsewhere; the eventual sale of 35 million acres–an area the size of Iowa–was expected. Separately, the Forest Service prepared to sell up to 17 million acres. The federal land agencies sped up the transfers to Alaska’s state government and Native Americans authorized by the 1958 Statehood Act, the 1971 Native Claims Settlement Act, and the 1980 National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The BLM experimentally revived homesteading in the Kuskokwim Mountains in central Alaska. Numerous federal-Western state land exchanges were in exploratory stages, and seemed most advanced in Utah. [p. 68]

Illegal ‘Adventure Pass’: What were they thinking?

by

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a lower court’s ruling, declaring that the Forest Service’s Adventure Pass violated the Recreation Enhancement Act (pdf). What I wonder is how the Forest Service thought that the Adventure Pass could pass a ‘red face test’ both in public and in the courts? Moreover, how did their USDA Office of General Counsel legal advisers feel that they could pass that red face test?

Is this yet another example of the Forest Service pushing forward with an initiative without much regard for the law, with both ‘professional arrogance’ and ‘budget protection/maximization’ motivations as backdrop? Finally, where does the Forest Service go from here?

In my book, given the austerity that the American people now face, and will face more squarely in the future, I think it time to talk seriously about what ought the Forest Service to manage for and at what cost, both in terms of direct cost to the US taxpayer and in terms of environmental costs. For me there are plenty of programs to prune, both within what the agency calls recreation and elsewhere. I believe it past time to take a careful look at Forest Service cash flows, sources and uses. Let’s then try to figure out what more and what less to do, and what to do differently.

A Flashback
Fee Demo and Adventure pass discussions are not new to the Forest Service. The Forest Service had a chance to respond to critics of both way back in 1999-2000 on Eco-Watch [Note this link provides a flat file readout of a forum that was largely devoted to fee demo discussion/criticism]. The Forest Service chose to be silent, just as they did with the recent forest planning rulemaking process. See, e.g my Earth to Forest Planning: Get a Blog. In 1999 I could understand their silence, their reluctance to engage in social media discussion. Social Media was brand new and the Forest Service was toying with it.I no longer have patience with their reluctance to engage.

Evidently the Congress did listen, passing the Recreation Enhancement Act in 2004,to replace the Recreation Fee Demo Program of 1994. But the Forest Service somehow thought that it could evade the clear language of the latter Act.

My question is broader than to allege that the Forest Service routinely ignores the Congress and the Courts. My question is, When will the Forest Service engage in public discourse, in public deliberation? And I’m not taking about the many, mostly facilitated, highly spun so-called dialogue efforts that the Forest Service too often employs. [Note: I am a champion of dialogue, when used for deep inquiry. But I’m afraid that the Forest Service is now in the process of turning “dialogue” into another “inform and involve” spin mechanism.]

Footnote on Framing, Blaming
I threw this post together in response to Sharon’s earlier post on this subject. Both posts are examples of what I call The Frame Game and The Blame Game. Sharon’s post frames this as “a problem if the FS can’t charge fees and doesn’t get funding from Congress.” The Forest Service is framed as the victim and the Congress or those who block general fees/contributions are framed as villains. This remains true (or not) whether or not the frame was imposed innocently. My post frames the issue as one where the taxpayer and/or the public interest are victims and the Forest Service is villain. Neither frame does justice to the problem at hand. But, hey, this is a blog and things are “thrown together” quickly.

In both cases—in every case—we ought not to forget that these twin forces, framing and blaming, are almost always at work. And we must never forget that there are plenty of victims (real and imagined) and plenty of us who can rightfully be viewed as villains from time to time. What remains a challenge and an opportunity is to be able to work together toward betterment of the public interest as best we can when we mostly see only our own shadows playing in reflection off the walls of caves that keep our thoughts narrowly confined.

[Note: 2/24/8:23 AM — I updated this post slightly, in response to a comment]

Errant ARRA Funds?

by


Could be that we need to work on some things before we achieve the desired restoration economy.

Purpose of ARRA (from Wikipedia):

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy.

Merkley to Forest Service: This Time, Hire Americans
Repeat of 2009 Foreign Hiring Would Be ‘Unacceptable Outrage’
From KTVZ.COM News Sources here.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., sent a letter Friday to Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell, urging him to take steps to ensure Americans will be hired for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program projects announced Feb. 2 — and not repeat the 2009 “debacle” of foreign hiring for those jobs.

Merkley expressed dismay that unemployed Oregonians were passed over for forest thinning work in favor of foreign workers on H-2B visas.

“It will be an unacceptable outrage if American citizens are not hired under these contracts,” Merkley wrote. “It is your responsibility, in partnership with the Department of Labor, to do everything possible—before contracts are issued—to ensure this outcome.”

Last year, a report from the Department of Labor’s Inspector General revealed that millions of dollars in stimulus funds were used by contractors employing foreign workers to perform forest thinning work. On December 1, 2011 Merkley sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and then Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew proposing changes to the H-2B foreign worker visa program that would help prevent similar incidents in the future.

Last Friday, the Department of Labor released a final rule that will make some improvements to how the H-2B program is managed, including changes that should make it easier for U.S. workers to apply for job openings that otherwise would go to foreign workers.

However, Merkley said, the changes will not go far enough. Merkley has proposed that the Director of the State workforce agency certifies that every employer seeking to use H-2B foreign labor has complied with all recruitment requirements and that there are no American citizens qualified or available to complete the work.

Friday’s letter asks that the USFS take additional steps in its contracting process to ensure that the work funded by the new grants is performed by Americans.

The text of the letter is below.

February 17, 2012

Mr. Tom Tidwell

Chief, U.S. Forest Service

1400 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20250-0003

Dear Chief Tidwell:

I write to you regarding the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) February 2, 2012 announcement of funding for the Fiscal Year 2012 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (the Program) projects. In particular, I want to ensure that local labor is hired to perform the work funded by these grants and we do not have a repeat of the debacle in 2009 when unemployed Oregonians were passed over for forest thinning work in favor of foreign nationals on H-2B visas.

As you know, I strongly support the Program which funds priority forest restoration initiatives that reduce wildfire costs, improve forest health, and create jobs. These long-term and large-scale investments are critical for the future of our nation’s forests and I am pleased the USFS is moving quickly to fund this year’s initiatives.

As the USFS has long recognized, improving the health of our national forests is critical to improving the economic health of the surrounding communities. The forestry work funded through the Program will occur in areas that have very high unemployment rates, a deep history of work in the timber economy, and a labor force highly qualified for this type of work. Beyond the broader economic benefits, such as supporting recreational opportunities in the woods and protecting sources of clean drinking water for rural communities, these projects are expected to create or maintain 1,500 jobs.

When the national unemployment rate is above eight percent, and the unemployment rate in Oregon’s timber counties is much higher, it is simply unconscionable that those jobs in our forests might be outsourced. I continue to be outraged that past forest thinning and wildfire prevention work has been awarded by the USFS to contractors using foreign nationals employed through the H-2B Temporary non-Agricultural Work program. As documented in the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General report from October 17, 2011 (Number 17-12-001-03-321), millions of dollars in recent Recovery Act funding spent in Oregon was used to pay contractors to complete similar projects who did not hire any American citizens.

The current requirements designed to ensure American citizens have priority are obviously not working. The Inspector General’s report from October describes some the flaws with the Recovery Act projects:

1. The use of illegal job requirements when communicating with U.S. citizens interested in the work. For example, unemployed Oregonians were asked how old they were and whether they could speak another language;

2. The posting of job orders by contractors only in the state where the work crews were initially located. Large contractors who had multiple jobs with the USFS and started their crews in Washington or California made no effort to recruit workers in Oregon;

3. A complete lack of guidance on the part of the Department of Labor to state workforce agencies to ensure that they were communicating job openings to the affected communities;

4. Little to no validation on the part of the Department of Labor that the information provided by employers seeking to be certified to use H-2B labor was accurate. In fact, the Department of Labor certified two contractors without ever verifying they were real businesses or verifying that the paperwork they were submitting contained all the required information.

The result of these abuses was that $7,140,782 taxpayer dollars were spent for forestry work in Oregon and not one Oregonian was hired.

I want to know what changes in the process you are going to take, along with the Department of Labor, to make sure this does not happen again.

The USFS should carefully consider the hiring practices and community involvement of contractors bidding for these projects so the desired economic impact is fully realized. Moreover, the Program’s projects in Oregon are ideally suited for the awarding of stewardship contracts that provide greater flexibility to the regional USFS offices to use “best value” criteria in choosing businesses to complete this work. The best value criteria can, and should, include preferential treatment for businesses that hire locally and sell the recovered wood into local markets. This approach would align one of the Program’s primary objectives, maximizing the economic impact for affected communities, with the contracting process that is most likely to achieve that goal.

I’d also like to be helpful in ensuring these funds support the local communities. I am including an enclosure to this letter that has contact information for the local WorkSource Oregon offices, and I would encourage your staff from the USFS’s Pacific Northwest Region 6 office to communicate directly with these offices once the funds have been awarded.

I commend the USFS for its commitment to protecting and restoring our national forests. The Program continues to provide a unique opportunity for states, communities, tribes and other organizations to partner together to improve these treasured resources and our rural communities.

In closing, let me emphasize that it will be an unacceptable outrage if American citizens are not hired under these contracts. It is your responsibility, in partnership with the Department of Labor, to do everything possible—before contracts are issued—to ensure this outcome.

I and my team are available at any time to meet and discuss this very important issue. I look forward to your prompt response.

NEPA Pilots- 4 FRI and Bell Landscape

by
4FRI with recent fires outlined.
Bell Landscape

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this.. something to keep an eye on.

For more info, here’s the link to Bell Landscape and here’s the link to 4FRI
http://politicalnews.me/?id=11776&keys=CEQ-NEPA-ENVIRONMENT-REVIEWS

PoliticalNews.me – Feb 13,2012 – CEQ and Forest Service announce project to improve efficiency of federal environmental reviews

WASHINGTON, —The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) announced a new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pilot project under an initiative launched in March 2011 to increase the quality and efficiency of Federal environmental reviews and reduce costs. CEQ has selected a U.S. Forest Service proposal to develop NEPA best practices for forest restoration projects using lessons learned from two restoration projects currently being analyzed in Arizona and Oregon.

“NEPA is a cornerstone of our country’s environmental protections and critical to protecting the health of American communities and the natural resources we depend on,” said Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. “This pilot project will promote faster and more effective Federal decisions on projects that will help restore our forests and support strong and healthy communities and economies.”

“These two projects demonstrate that by involving partners early in the NEPA process we can cut costs and operate more efficiently while still maintaining strong environmental safeguards at the ground level,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “We look forward to replicating what we are doing in Arizona and Oregon to other parts of the country where we are engaged in critical restoration work.”

Under this NEPA pilot project, the Forest Service will compare and contrast environmental review methods used for the landscape-scale Four Forest Restoration Initiative in Arizona and the smaller-scale 5-Mile Bell project in Oregon. The Four Forest Restoration Initiative is an effort to collectively manage portions of four contiguous National Forests. The pilot includes the first restoration project under consideration, which would cover approximately 1 million acres. The Forest Service will employ a collaborative NEPA approach to plan and analyze the proposed restoration activities in an Environmental Impact Statement of unprecedented scale and scope for forest restoration projects. In collaboration with stakeholders, the Forest Service also will develop an adaptive management strategy to allow for flexibility in implementing the restoration projects and minimize the need for future planning and environmental reviews.

The 5-Mile Bell Landscape Management Project is an ecological and habitat restoration project on nearly 5,000 acres of National Forest System lands on the Oregon Coast. For this smaller scale project, the Forest Service will employ an innovative approach to NEPA by engaging local, state and tribal partners in the environmental review process up front to an unprecedented extent. In an effort to reduce potential conflicts and delays, the partners will collaboratively prepare the environmental review and implement the selected land restoration project.

CEQ and the Forest Service will compile the lessons learned from the NEPA approaches used for both the small-scale and the landscape scale projects and use them to develop best practices for future land restoration projects.

The Forest Service project is the fifth pilot selected under the NEPA Pilot Program, which is part of a broad CEQ initiative to modernize and reinvigorate how Federal agencies implement NEPA. Other actions under the modernization initiative include issuing new NEPA guidance for
Federal agencies, enhancing public tools to encourage participation in the NEPA process, and forming rapid response teams to help expedite the review process for transportation, transmission and renewable energy projects.

For more information on CEQ’s NEPA Pilots Program, please visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/nepa-pilot-project.

For more information on CEQ’s Initiative to Modernize and Reinvigorate NEPA, please visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initatives/nepa.

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.

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.

Positive Step for WEG and Owl Lawsuit

by

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this..

In our previous pieces here and here on this litigation, I wondered a bit why the power users in Phoenix, and the townspeople of the Village of Ruidoso should suffer because of an issue between WEG and the FS on monitoring. Apparently, WEG did see it the same way. Good on them.

I still don’t understand the mechanics of how power line maintenance could harm the owl, maybe someone can enlighten me.

Group Won’t Interfere With Thinning
By Rene Romo / Journal South Reporter on Tue, Jan 17, 2012

http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/01/17/news/group-wont-interfere-with-thinning.html

LAS CRUCES — Despite winning a federal court order last week halting three forest-thinning projects to avoid harm to the Mexican spotted owl, WildEarth Guardians will not stand in the way of urgently needed work to reduce fire danger, a spokesman said.

The Jan. 5 court order halted two tree-thinning projects in Arizona and, in New Mexico, a project known as Perk-Grindston aimed at reducing fuel loads by tree removal and controlled burns on about 5,000 acres of the Lincoln National Forest on the south and west sides of Ruidoso.

Treating the forest west or southwest of Ruidoso is a high priority because winds that generally blow to the northeast could carry a wildfire into housing developments.

Ruidoso’s municipal forestry director Dick Cooke said while “a good portion” of the Perk-Grindstone project approved in mid-2008 has been completed, more work remains. The village also has treated about 80 acres of land within city limits.

“There’s been quite a bit done, but there’s still much to do,” Cooke said. “I would say the risk of wildfire on that side of the village is still high.”

In Arizona, some of the work halted involved removing hazards from tree growth along power lines. A tree that fell across power lines in late June was blamed for sparking the Las Conchas Fire, which burned more than 156,000 acres near Los Alamos and destroyed dozens of homes in the Cochiti Canyon area.
Bryan Bird, a program director for WildEarth Guardians, said the organization is negotiating with government attorneys and the Forest Service “to assure that the maintenance of the power lines will continue without harming the owl” and before the start of the owl’s breeding season in March.
“They (the Forest Service) need to get started immediately on that, and we understand that and we are being flexible in that matter,” Bird said.

In the Ruidoso area, Bird said, WildEarth Guardians is working to ensure the injunction halts only work that could affect nesting sites “so the Forest Service can continue with thinning where it doesn’t hurt the owl.”

WildEarth Guardians alleged in the 2010 suit that the Forest Service had failed to monitor the population of the Mexican spotted owl as required by a 2005 agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bird said without maintaining counts of the owls, the impact of thinning projects on the owl cannot be determined.

— This article appeared on page C2 of the Albuquerque Journal

21st Century Problems- ” Loving It Without Loving it to Death”- Gallatin Crest

by

We’ve heard this mantra in many places when the different recreationists seek to have land managed for their varying methods of recreation. It seems to me if place-based decisions worked out by locals are the best way to proceed- but I’d be interested in hearing other points of view. The comments are also interesting. In the rhetoric around the 2001 Roadless Rule, land needed to be “protected”. Now we find that some believe that that is not “protected enough”- motorized and mechanized need to be “outta there.” Also note the reference to one of our favorite topics.. litigation.

Here’s the link to the story in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

The next steps for the Gallatin Crest

CARLY FLANDRO, Chronicle Staff Writer | Posted: Sunday, January 8, 2012 12:15 am

Windy Pass in the Gallatin Range is a place of spectacular beauty.

Trying to explain it, Roger Jenkins recently recalled the opening scene of “The Sound of Music,” when Julie Andrews twirls in a grassy mountain meadow singing “The Hills are Alive.”

“That’s how you feel when you’re standing there,” he said.

Jenkins is president of the Madison Gallatin Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association and an avid hiker and skier. He believes that a unique tract of land stretching from Yellowstone National Park toward Bozeman – which includes Windy Pass – should be protected and designated as wilderness. That would mean no motorized or mechanized uses would be allowed there.

Kerry White, on the other hand, has been snowmobiling in that same area since the 1960s. He remembers snowmobiling there with his grandfather and father, and wants to make sure he can share those same experiences with his children and grandchildren.

“These areas are precious,” said White, president of Citizens for Balanced Use, a coalition of motorized and mechanized recreationists. “On top of Eaglehead Mountain on a clear day you can see the Grand Tetons 100 miles away. It is spectacular.”

The Gallatin Crest is a special place that people can visit after the work week to “get back that momentum of life” and “recuperate from the everyday grind of traffic and noise,” White said.

From his perspective, designating the land as wilderness would mean locking it up in perpetuity and taking away opportunities for future generations.

The land in question is known as the Gallatin Crest, officially the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area. It was set aside in 1977 to be considered for wilderness designation by Congress. Legislators, though, still have not decided what to do with the land, and in the meantime, arguments over the area’s future have gone on for more than 30 years.

A recent court ruling has sparked debate again, and area residents are talking about what to do next. Most think stakeholders should work together to come up with a consensus plan, then present it to legislators in the hopes of encouraging them to act.
Litigation and the recent ruling

In 2002, the Gallatin National Forest began preparing a travel plan after realizing that “the demand for some recreation opportunities” in the forest might “be reaching the point of exceeding the capability of the land to provide them,” according to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals documents.

Finalized in 2006, the travel plan restricted the number of trails in the WSA that could be used by motorcycles and mountain bikes. Those changes were made to help the study area retain its 1977 wilderness character — as required by law — until Congress decides whether to designate it.

Environmental groups, including the Montana Wilderness Association, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Wilderness Society, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service, essentially alleging that motorized and mechanized use would still be too great under the new travel plan.

Citizens for Balanced Use and another group of motorized users filed a separate lawsuit, alleging the opposite: that the travel plan unlawfully restricted motorized use in the study area.

A district court ruled that the Forest Service didn’t take into account the increased volume of motorized and mechanized users when making its plan. That decision was appealed, and on Dec. 1, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling.

“We hold that the travel plan improperly ignores the impact of increased volume of motorized and mechanized use on current users’ ability to seek quiet and solitude in the study area,” the ruling said. “Because the Service entirely failed to consider this important aspect of its duty to maintain the study area’s 1977 wilderness character, its decision is arbitrary and capricious.”

So what does that mean for the future of the Gallatin Crest? The answer to that is still being figured out.

The ball is in the Gallatin National Forest’s court

The Gallatin National Forest is responsible for acting on the ruling.

“It may take some time for us to fully digest this ruling and determine an appropriate course of action,” Mary Erickson, Custer and Gallatin Forest supervisor, said in a Dec. 5 statement.

In the meantime, GNF announced that an interim winter plan to manage the WSA would remain in effect. That plan constrains snowmobile use in the WSA to the Big Sky Snowmobile Trail and an open area for cross country snowmobile travel near Golden Trout Lakes.

In a recent interview, Marna Daley, spokeswoman for Gallatin National Forest, said the Forest Service is still grappling with what to do next.

“The real issue is about the opportunity for solitude,” she said.

And solitude is not just affected by the extent or distribution of snowmobiles, motorcycles or mountain bikes, but also by their volume. Deciding what volume is appropriate will be a challenge, as the Forest Service does not have data about volume levels in 1977.

“We’re trying to determine the best way to move forward from here,” Daley said. “We’re trying to find a strategy that is going to result in a management configuration that people can get behind and at least support — maybe not embrace but at least support.”

Ideally, a user-based solution could be found, she said. Additional analyses of the WSA and its opportunities for solitude could also be done.

When asked whether the Forest Service would finance a mediator to help stakeholders reach a consensus, Daley said it would consider that if there were a likelihood of success.

“We certainly don’t have funds to just sink into a process that may not have an outcome,” she said.

She added that the Forest Service is striving to find a solution that will break the cycle of “never-ending litigation.” The Gallatin National Forest hopes to identify the next steps it will take by early February.

While it considers its options, the Forest Service is also dealing with an approximately $170,000 bill for the conservation groups’ litigation costs. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, federal government entities must pay for the opposing sides’ litigation costs if the opposition prevails in court.

Daley said the bill amounts to 15 percent of the agency’ fiscal year 2012 recreation budget and could impact the amount of trail and road maintenance the Forest Service conducts and whether it can hire as many seasonal employees.

“It’s a significant amount,” she said. “We’ve somehow got to make that up.”

However the Forest Service responds to the 9th Circuit ruling, its actions might trigger continued litigation. Another solution to the problem, though, would be congressional action.

Many stakeholders favor a collaborative effort to produce a plan for the WSA that all could support. That plan could then be presented to legislators and would perhaps encourage them to finally make a decision on whether the WSA should be a wilderness area.
Stakeholders

Ben Donatelle works at a local bike shop and is coordinator for the Wilderness and Recreation Partnership, an organization focused on protecting the WSA while working to improve trails and access outside its boundaries.

He would support a wilderness designation, though it means mountain bikers could not ride on any of its trails.

“There are a thousand miles of other trails,” he said.

He believes one of the greatest reasons for protecting the area is because it serves as critically important habitat and a corridor for wildlife, such as wolverines and grizzly bears.

“I want to have places out there that exist that are pristine, untouched, untracked and, like the wilderness act says, untrammeled by man,” he said. “If everybody went wherever they wanted, will-nilly, we wouldn’t have those wild places. And its been proven time and time again that the public is in favor of that.”

He hopes that the recent ruling serves as a catalyst for the community to come together and take a hard look at why it cares about this place and how it wants it to be managed in the future.

“The common thread is that we all love to get out into wild places and into nature and do what we love to do,” he said. “We should have the foresight to protect some of those places for things that are greater than ourselves.”

Steve Gehman, wildlife biologist and program director for the nonprofit Wild Things Unlimited, said the WSA is important to many rare and sensitive species. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be wilderness in order to maintain the wildlife, he said, but it would add another level of protection for the animals.

Patti Steinmuller, a hiker and skier from Gallatin Gateway, said she thinks community meetings or focus groups are the key to resolving this issue.

“I don’t think congressional action is likely without a broad network of support from the community,” she said. “(We need) a real Montana-based, locally crafted plan that works for everyone.”

White with Citizens for Balanced Use believes there should be more access for motorized uses. Places to snowmobile within the WSA are limited, and in the greater Gallatin National Forest, snowmobilers can travel only in open areas without trees or cliffs.

CBU board member Brad Grein said that the areas snowmobilers do have left have become so crowded that the rewarding experiences of snowmobiling, such as finding untracked snow, have been diminished.

“What CBU is looking for is a fair and balanced approach,” White said. “We don’t see that balance and fairness coming out of the (Forest Service) or being supported by environmental groups. Those folks want it all”

CBU is supporting a bill sponsored by a California legislator known as the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011. It would release WSAs across the country from continued management as de facto wilderness areas.

Some conservationists make the point that if the WSA near Bozeman were not designated as wilderness, it could be subject to natural resource development that could deprive it of its unique qualities.

White believes there are no development opportunities in that area.

“The terrain is prohibitive in that way,” he said. “There’s no chance that (development) would occur. That’s a pipe dream for those guys to even make that argument.”

“We’re going to continue to fight,” he said. “We are not going to stand for losing it all.”

But White said CBU would be open to efforts to work together for a solution.

“All stakeholders need to be engaged,” he said.

Jenkins said the California bill indicates that there’s pressure to resolve these issues. He sees it as a great opportunity for stakeholders to start talking.

“Wilderness and designating wilderness is not about use, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about an outdoor gymnasium. It’s about protecting the landscape,” Jenkins said. “It’s not just all about me, it’s about the future generation, the grandchildren and great grandchildren here today.”

The many stakeholders involved with this issue have diverse perspectives, but Jenkins noted there is common ground.

“All the people talking about this range love it,” he said. “But we’ve got to find a way we can love it without loving it to death.”

If you’re curious about how much wilderness there is already in the vicinity, you can check this handy application (I clicked on Montana,scrolled down to that part of Montana, and clicked off the check for “names” to see clearly), supported by many agencies including the FS and the University of Montana. Remember it shows wildernesses and not Yellowstone Park, parts of which are managed in a wilderness like way (no motorized or mechanized, etc.).

New Flame: Are we ready for another Las Conchas?

by

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for finding this article in the Santa Fe Reporter. It is too long too include here, but not so long it isn’t worth reading. From a quick read, I like the fact that it explores the daunting nature of the challenges that face us without finger-pointing.

Note: BLM and FS were capable of sharing resources across boundaries as part of the Service First initiative, so hopefully someone can further explain why some agencies can in some areas and other agencies in other places have trouble..

A Couple of Bipartisan Place-Based Bills

by

From Oregon here:

Oregon’s rural communities cannot afford another 20 years of gridlock in our federal forests. Without a new path forward, mills will continue to disappear, forest jobs will be outsourced and counties will be pushed off the budgetary cliff. During a time when it’s particularly hard to find common ground in public policy, we think we have achieved a balanced forest health and jobs plan — and in a uniquely Oregon way.
As a bipartisan coalition, we have worked through our differences to forge a plan that would create thousands of new jobs, ensure the health of federal forests for future generations and provide long-term funding certainty for Oregon’s rural schools, roads and law enforcement agencies.
Federal support payments to rural and forested communities, commonly known as “county payments,” helped support rural Oregon counties for more than a decade. They expired Oct. 1.
Absent a long-term solution, diminishing county payments will have serious consequences for Oregon families and businesses.
A recent Oregon State University study found that without county payments, Oregon’s rural counties will shed between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs. Oregon business sales will drop by an estimated $385 million to $400 million. Counties will lose $250 million to $300 million in revenues.
Counties already near the financial cliff and facing depression­like unemployment soon may call for a public safety emergency and will be forced to eliminate most state-mandated services — including services that help the neediest citizens in our communities.
Failing counties will have consequences for the entire state. Those counties will continue to release offenders and close jail beds. Potholed roads and structurally deficient bridges will be neglected. And already-underfunded rural schools will be devastated.
Given the serious fiscal crisis our forested communities face, we believe a new approach is necessary to create jobs, help stabilize Oregon’s rural communities and better manage our forests.
We hope to release the full details of our plan early next year. But, given the importance and enormous amount of public interest in this issue, we wanted to update Oregonians on the broad outlines of our work:
Our plan would create an estimated 12,000 new jobs throughout Oregon. To preserve and expand Oregon’s manufacturing base, our plan would continue the ban on exporting unprocessed logs from federal lands and impose penalties on businesses that violate the law and send family-wage jobs overseas.
Our plan would allow sustainable timber harvest primarily on lands that have been logged previously. It sets aside sensitive areas and mature and old growth forests. The timber harvest lands would remain under the ownership of the federal government but would be managed in trust for the counties by a diverse, public board under strict guidelines to ensure sustained yield and to protect and improve clean water and terrestrial and aquatic values. The mature and old growth forests would be transferred from the federal Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. Forest Service.
Our plan would provide counties in Western Oregon with a predictable level of revenues in perpetuity to support essential county services such as law enforcement, health care, education and transportation. It would reduce counties’ dependence on uncertain federal support payments in favor of a long-term solution that allows them to return to the tradition of self-reliance that embodies our state’s heritage.
Our plan is expected to save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars by reducing the annual federal management costs associated with the management of Western Oregon timber­lands and making Oregon counties self-sufficient and not dependent upon federal county payments.
Our plan proposes major new wilderness and wild and scenic designations to protect some of Oregon’s most incredible natural treasures, such as the iconic Rogue River.
Our plan is a moderate approach.
It will not appease those who insist on returning to the days of unsustainable logging and clear-cutting old growth on public lands. It will not win the support of those who are content with the status quo — administrative gridlock and endless legal appeals that have led to unhealthy forests, failing rural counties and a deteriorating timber industry.
And like all legislation in Congress, our plan still is subject to the legislative process. While we believe the plan we have crafted is a reasonable compromise that serves the best interests of Oregon, we must work with the House Committee on Natural Resources and our colleagues in the greater House of Representatives, the Senate and the Obama administration.
Fortunately, the most persuasive arguments are on our side. Our balanced, bipartisan plan would create thousands of jobs in our forests, mills and communities, stabilize rural communities, save taxpayers money, protect old growth and ensure the health of federal forests for future generations.
It’s a solution that Oregonians deserve. We look forward to working with those who want to make this long-term vision a reality.

U.S. Reps. Peter DeFazio, Greg Walden and Kurt Schrader represent Oregon’s 4th, 1st and 5th congressional districts.

From Montana:

Battle for Preservation In Montana Is Nothing New
By Gabriel Furshong / Writers on the Range on Wed, Dec 28, 2011
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/12/28/north/battle-for-preservation-in-montana-is-nothing-new.html

More so than any other landscape in Big Sky Country, Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front derives its wonder from a violent juxtaposition of geological forms. The Front is the convergence of two mega-ecosystems that together cover roughly a quarter of our country – the Northern Plains and the Northern Rockies.
This is where each seemingly limitless region reaches its limit. Within this thin strip roams the second-largest elk herd in the Lower 48, as well as 13 species of raptor and a third of all plant species known in Montana. It’s the only place south of the Canadian border where grizzlies still den between the peaks and the prairie.
For 100 years, this landscape has been the subject of debate over the limits of acceptable change. Montanans along the Front have fought oil and gas exploration. It is a measure of their success that the battle cry of each generation has gradually shifted from our grandparents and great-grandparents, who wanted to “return it to the way it was,” to our parents and ourselves, who now want to “keep it the way it is.”
This last phrase – keep it the way it is – has for 10 years been the unofficial motto of the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, a loose affiliation of outfitters, ranchers, farmers, community organizers, business owners and outdoor enthusiasts. Thanks to this coalition, the debate over change on the Front is now closer to resolution than ever before.
Last October, Montana Sen. Max Baucus introduced the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, which would designate 67,000 acres of wilderness and prohibit road building or any expansion of motorized use on an additional 210,000 acres. That’s big news. Yet, the relative calm with which the news was received has been surprising. When I asked a veteran writer and former journalist for the Missoulian newspaper what he thought about the media coverage of Baucus’ announcement, all he could say was, “I just don’t understand why it hasn’t gotten more attention.”
His words followed me to the Front where I retreated for a hunting trip just a week after the announcement. While waiting on white-tailed deer, I found myself reflecting on the twists and turns of our local debate over change. I wondered why this pending resolution has been received so quietly after so much time and such a lot of fuss.
The coalition’s many predecessors fought seemingly endless battles for the better part of a century, from the near-extinction of the buffalo and other species to agency road building and aggressive oil and gas exploration. Our first victory finally came in 2006, when Republican Sen. Conrad Burns and Democratic Sen. Max Baucus banned all leasing of federal minerals along the Front. Forest Service travel plan decisions that followed in 2007 and 2009 emphasized traditional use over motorized recreation, and suddenly, a once-complicated landscape was largely cleared of competing interests.
It was then that farmers and ranchers affiliated with the coalition raised an important question: Would we have the restraint to avoid becoming agents of change ourselves? Over the next four years, we interviewed grazing permittees, argued with county commissioners, developed alliances, held meetings of 100 people and meetings of 10 people, and sought out hundreds of kitchen-table conversations, one person at a time.
We drew boundaries. We nearly fell out with each other several times, but we hung onto the ideal of restraint. In the end, it was not just the landscape that we chose to the keep the way it was. We chose to maintain all existing uses as well, including motorized and bicycle use alongside traditional horse and hiker travel.
So after going through so much, it’s understandable that this final stage in the fight is underwhelming. Indeed, the only evident opposition to the Heritage Act so far came in the form of an indignant email from a small western Montana environmental group decrying the legislation as containing far too few wilderness acres. I mentioned this to a Vietnam veteran and local lawyer from Choteau, Mont., when I ran into him on my hunting trip. As he trailed his horse around me, he just shook his head and said, “Well, we’ve had that debate a million times before.”
Yes, we have, and with any luck it won’t change a thing.

At this time of the year, I am working on my end-of-year donations. I received a “Top 10 Reasons to Give” list from an international environmental law NGO that I support. One of the bullets on the list was “because forest peoples deserve a say in how their land is used…. we will continue to work to safeguard the rights of indigenous people and other local communities in the implementation of projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation (REDD).” It’s a good question for consideration, I think, in the New Year. We should be considering property rights, local history, and political legitimacy in terms of the legitimate role of local people in our own country.

What kind of “rights” should local communities have in terms of decision making on federal lands? It reminds me of a dinner I had once with a Senior Executive of another federal agency. His point of view was that the people of Delta don’t deserve any more of a voice in the management of public lands around Delta than people in the Bronx. On the other hand, we have the county “coordination” movement and increasing local/federal tensions. What can we learn from the two examples above, who seem to have managed to find a middle ground?