collaboration and public involvement

Speaking up for America’s Forests

by

orest trail at Dolly Sods Wilderness South. The Dolly Sods Wilderness is a U.S. Wilderness Area in the Allegheny Mountains of eastern West Virginia and part of the Monongahela National Forest The Nature Conservancy has acquired and protected thousands of acres in the Monongahela forest. The northeast end of the Federal land at Dolly Sods is bordered by the Bear Rocks Nature Preserve, owned by The Nature Conservancy. Dolly Sods and Bear Rocks Preserve are adjoining areas of incomparable beauty that are comprised of high plateaus above 4000 ft. and steep-walled stream valleys. The area was originally covered with a thick spruce forest but was aggressively logged in the early 20th century. Today the area is dominated by broad plains covered with heath and grasses, with many bogs. Hardwoods dominate the lower elevations but the spruce forest is coming back at higher elevations. PHOTO CREDIT: © Kent Mason
This is from the TNC blog here.

The following is a guest post written by Chris Topik. Chris has spent his entire career working to restore America’s forests. Today he serves as director of The Nature Conservancy’s Restoring America’s Forests program. Previously he worked as staff for the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and also as a 16-year-employee for the Forest Service in Oregon, Washington and Washington, DC.

“A people without children would face a hopeless future;
a country without trees is almost as helpless.”
-Theodore Roosevelt

The stock market has plunged to half its value. Unemployment has doubled. And the President struggles to rebuild the economy of a politically divided country.

The scene may feel familiar to us today, but this was the world of President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt in 1907.

Yet by the end of his presidency President Roosevelt could reflect back on a recovered economy, an assertive global presence, markets freed from monopolies and more lands and waters conserved than any President before or since.

Of those herculean accomplishments won during tough economic times, none has forwarded greater benefits to us today than Roosevelt’s attention to the nation’s outdoors. Through the creation of the U.S. Forest Service and other conservation initiatives, Roosevelt established a natural framework that continues to provide life-giving benefits to America.

For example, this year we celebrate the centennial of one of Roosevelt’s signature outdoor legacies, the Weeks Act of 1911. This Act, sponsored by Representative John Wingate Weeks of Massachusetts, created 52 National Forests east of the Mississippi and set a precedent for collaboration on all Forest Service lands throughout the nation.

The greatest gift of the Weeks Act, however, may be it proved we can accomplish epic improvements to the health of our lands for generations to come — if the will still exists to realize them.

With an estimated 120 million acres of American forests in need of immediate restoration today (the size of California and Maine combined), a stalling economy and perhaps an even more stagnant political environment — the question is, do we still own that epic will?

Thankfully, a new report released today (pdf) suggests the answer is “yes!” This first-year analysis of the new Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) further offers tangible results backing up that sentiment.

In just one year, from just 10 National Forest projects, CFLRP achieved the following:

Created and maintained 1,550 jobs;
Produced 107 million board feet of timber;
Generated nearly $59 million of labor income;
Removed fuel for destructive mega-fires on 90,000 acres near communities;
Reduced mega-fire on an additional 64,000 acres;
Improved 66,000 acres of wildlife habitat;
Restored 28 miles of fish habitat;
Enhanced clean water supplies by remediating 163 miles of eroding roads.

Perhaps even more encouraging is that all of this was achieved in a collaborative, bipartisan manner with just an initial $10 million of federal investment. Folks who were once at loggerheads over the management of our forests — industries, environmentalists, recreationists, sportsmen — have put those conflicts aside and worked collaboratively to achieve real, everyday benefits in their own communities with CFLRP.

In fact, CFLRP is seemingly one of the few programs Congress can agree on, with a bipartisan “Dear Colleague” letter now circulating in the Senate that supports increasing that seed money to $40 million in the 2012 budget, so even more communities can share in the jobs, forest, water, and wildlife successes of CFLRP. The sponsors of that letter are Senators Bingaman (D-NM), Crapo (R-ID), and Risch (R-ID).

Yet, by itself, CFLRP cannot solve the problems our American forests face: overgrown forests, a plague of pests, sprawl, climate change and the record mega-fires that result from this “perfect storm” of threats. But CFLRP is a step in the right direction that deserves more support, so that the lessons learned on these landscapes can spread further in our nation’s forests.

As a child, Theodore Roosevelt was notoriously sickly and myopic. In the belief he could heal his body through physical exertions, he prescribed himself a childhood spent outdoors and in the boxing ring. The prescription worked, and that sickly boy grew into a pugnacious collegiate boxing champion, a rugged cowboy, a leader of Rough Riders and ultimately, a farsighted president.

In doing so he made a lifetime out of answering the bell. Now it’s our turn.

Please ask your Congressional representatives now to help spread the success of CFLRP by sending them a message today. With 26 applicants to this program in 2011, you may be supporting a project in your own community!

—–
Top 10 Weeks Act States by Acres:
Virginia 1,609,489
Arkansas 1,502,571
Michigan 1,491,673
Missouri 1,435,445
Wisconsin 1,187,062
Minnesota 1,146,664
North Carolina 1,091,377
West Virginia 1,023,768
Mississippi 878,218
Georgia 850,928

Top 10 Weeks Act National Forests by State:
Virginia George Washington and Jefferson National Forest 1,609,489
Missouri Mark Twain National Forest 1,435,445
Wisconsin Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 1,187,062
North Carolina National Forests in North Carolina 1,091,057
West Virginia Monongahela National Forest 900,105
Mississippi National Forests In Mississippi 878,218
Georgia Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests 850,928
Minnesota Superior National Forest 830,130
Arkansas Ozark-St. Francis National Forest 823,770
Michigan Ottawa National Forest 741,080

Bugs, fire, politics threaten western Montana forests: from the Missoulian

by

Here’s the link.

Three things will combine to radically transform Montana forests in the next 50 years: bugs, fire and politics.
Mountain pine beetles have killed millions of acres of lodgepole pine trees. Those dead stands, combined with a progressively drier climate, will likely burn in wilder, more intense fashion. The biological aftermath should bring a wider mix of tree species, open areas and wildlife habitat, according to new computer models.
How humans tinker with that progression remains a wildcard. During this month’s Society for Conservation Biology research symposium at the University of Montana, several scientists demonstrated a technique called landscape simulation modeling. They’ve built software that juggles invasive weeds, weather patterns, logging plans, road removal and a lot of other factors to see how a forest will change over time.
“We see more of a natural sequence of events that could result in a more normal habitat distribution,” Michael Hillis of Missoula’s Ecosystem Research Group said of his model for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. “But the forest will look much different.”
The “B-bar-D” forest covers 3.4 million acres of southwest Montana, bigger than Glacier and Yellowstone national parks combined. Hillis said most of its spruce and Douglas fir stands were logged a century ago for the state’s mining industry. The resulting lodgepole stands grew up and matured at the same time, producing what Hillis called the “forest demographics of a rest home” at the perfect age for a beetle epidemic.
Many of those dead trees will then fuel forest fires. While the research is mixed whether a beetle-killed stand burns more dangerously than a green canopy, Hillis said the certain result is more fire scars on the landscape. Those scars in turn will eventually hobble later fires with a matrix of burned and unburned patches. Burned areas may return as new lodgepole stands, which regenerate best after a fire. But the unburned zones could see a return of fir, spruce and other tree species that get a chance to grow without the lodgepoles’ choking shade.
Assuming that model is correct, what do humans do with the information? Hillis, a Forest Service researcher before he moved to private practice, said his analysis helped inspire the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership, a coalition of conservationists and loggers who proposed a new way of managing the national forest. Their plan eventually became a cornerstone of Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
That legislation has also drawn critics who warn that tinkering with the forest’s natural process could produce bad results.
“I’ve read a lot of the stories and research on climate change coming out, and one constant is we’re constantly being surprised by the results,” said George Nikas, director of Wilderness Watch and an opponent of Tester’s bill. “Changes are occurring more rapidly than expected, and how they’re expressing themselves on the landscape is different than we expect. If you think you’ve struck on a model or scenario that looks likely today and start acting on it, I’m almost certain in a couple years it will look very different.”
***
Tester’s bill would designate about 1 million acres of new wilderness and recreation areas in Montana. It would also require the Forest Service to open at least 100,000 acres of timber over 15 years to logging, thinning or other mechanical treatment in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo and Kootenai national forests. Last month, the senator successfully got it inserted in the Interior Department’s spending bill, which is awaiting congressional action.
Nikas and other opponents have objected to the bill’s mixing of land protections and land management orders. The forest treatment requirements “devolve public lands into local fiefdoms, allowing individual senators to write management plans into law for national forests,” he said.
But Nikas further argued actions like thinning hazardous fuels around the edges of communities is a waste of taxpayer dollars at the forest’s expense.
“If the problem is a risk of fire on the wildland-urban interface, then we need to put zoning restrictions on building, or adopt policies that say if you want to do it, good luck,” Nikas said. “You can’t manipulate forests because of decisions people are making to build in the forest. It’s just like not encouraging people to build in the floodplain.”
John Gatchell of the Montana Wilderness Association is one of Nikas’ regular debating partners. His organization was one of the founding members of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership. He said the Forest Service’s inability to get either logging or habitat work done helped form the compromise.
“There were 106 watershed projects backlogged on the B-D that were not happening,” Gatchell said. “When you look at the landscapes and the condition they should be in, you start seeing all the work that needs to be done.”

Hillis’ research looked into some of the treatments, such as fuels thinning and prescribed burns. His conclusion was that where work took place, the result was better habitat connectivity, a more varied mix of trees and a 50 percent reduction in fire incidence and severity.

“Opponents who don’t like selling trees say this is wrong,” Hillis said. “But the objective research shows thinning provides long-term benefits for forest health.”

Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at [email protected]

************

Note from Sharon: I thought this paragraph was particularly interesting..there are different ways of dealing with uncertainty. Some are arguing for managing based on down-scaled model results (the “best available science”?), and some admitting we just don’t know. Admitting we don’t know can also lead us down a number of different paths, though, at least partially depending on our previous predilictions.

“I’ve read a lot of the stories and research on climate change coming out, and one constant is we’re constantly being surprised by the results,” said George Nikas, director of Wilderness Watch and an opponent of Tester’s bill. “Changes are occurring more rapidly than expected, and how they’re expressing themselves on the landscape is different than we expect. If you think you’ve struck on a model or scenario that looks likely today and start acting on it, I’m almost certain in a couple years it will look very different.”

Webinar Tomorrow on Conflict Management in Planning

by

Webinar tomorrow on conflict management in planning.
Here’s the link.
Don’t miss this upcoming Live Webinar sponsored by: USDA Forest Service .

Title: What do you do when people start throwing food at the table? A conflict management perspective

Session Details:
Nov 18, 2011 12:00 pm US/Eastern Duration: 01:00 (hh:mm) vCal iCal
*** Please join the session 15 minutes prior to the start of the webinar. ***

What will you learn?
The 2011 Changing Roles webinar series has a theme: Considering Natural Resources in Land-Use Decision Making Processes. Natural resource professionals often refer to “being at the table” in reference to their participation in multi-stakeholder processes such as land-use planning and therefore, this same language is used in the session titles of this series. Each session will address the theme from a different perspective. This is the final webinar in the four-session series. This session will address common challenges faced in multi-stakeholder group processes and is aimed at resource professionals who are already “at the table” and engaged in land-use planning processes. This webinar will present strategies for working through conflict to create solutions to complex and contentious land-use issues. learn more here…

Who should participate?
Foresters, Land Managers, Natural Resource Professionals, Planners

Presenters/Authors:
Steve Smutko, Spicer Chair of Collaborative Practice, University of Wyoming, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics

There are many other interesting webinars and other information at this site. I liked this one about Carbon and Forest Products.

Forest Service Chief Tidwell announces future advisory committee for Planning Rule

by

Forest Service Chief Tidwell announces future advisory committee for Planning Rule
Call for nominations set for later this year

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14, 2011 –The U.S. Forest Service announced today that it will form an advisory committee that will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on the implementation of the new Planning Rule set for finalization this winter.

The Federal Advisory Committee – which could be formed early next year – will advise the Secretary on how the new rule is implemented. The U.S. Forest Service manages 155 national forests and 20 grasslands that will be affected by the new rule, which, if finalized this winter, will replace a 1982 version.

“This new committee will keep the collaborative momentum going on what has been a remarkably open and transparent process for the country’s first planning rule in 30 years,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “Stakeholder input has been instrumental in allowing us develop a strong draft rule up to this point – we need to continue to tap into our strong partnerships to carry this rule forward.”

In the coming months the Forest Service will announce its request for committee member nominations in the Federal Register. More information about the committee and how to seek nomination will be available at that time. Members will be sought with diverse backgrounds, who represent the full range of public interests in management of the National Forest System lands and who represent geographically diverse locations and communities.

Visit the agency’s planning rule website for the latest information on the formation of the committee and the status of the new planning rule.

I think this is great, for the reasons articulated previously on this blog here. Although at the time I was suggesting one for rule development, most of the arguments, I think, are equally valid for rule implementation. It helps to transition from the idea that problems with NFMA planning are “FS problems” to understanding that everyone has a role in improving the planning process.

Crapo on Collaboration

by

From Political News here.

Nov 13,2011 – Crapo: Collaboration Taking Higher Profile in U.S. Forest Service Notes promotion of Region 1 Forester Leslie Weldon to Deputy Chief

Washington, D.C. – The use of collaboration and increased public involvement to address contentious federal land management issues is a welcome development, according to Idaho Senator Mike Crapo. Crapo noted the promotion of Region 1 Forester Leslie Weldon to become the new Deputy Chief for the U.S. Forest Service.

Crapo said Weldon has been an active supporter and participant of the Clearwater Basin Collaborative (CBC), an advisory group Crapo helped establish more than three years ago to find solutions to contentious land management and wildlife issues in Idaho’s Clearwater Basin.

“The U.S. Forest Service has been an active participant in the Collaborative and I credit the agency with being at the forefront of this collaborative, problem-solving effort and working with Congress to fund joint initiatives that are bearing fruit,” Crapo said. “Regional Forester Leslie Weldon, working with the leadership team of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest and all of our collaborative members, is advancing a template for land management that could lead to fewer fights in the courts and more on-the-ground land use agreements. We have seen collaborative successes with the Interior Department and Bureau of Land Management with the Owyhee Initiative in Southwest Idaho. Now, we are seeing collaboration work with the Forest Service and I commend today’s announcement and promotion of Ms. Weldon to help lead the Forest Service team.”

The CBC has spawned new discussions of job creation through timber harvesting and landscape improvements, which could benefit habitat for elk, fish and other wildlife. Collaborative members have also discussed land protections, recreation and transportation issues to settle long-running disputes on federal lands in central Idaho. The Idaho collaborative effort was one of ten in the nation singled out by Forest Service management as pilot projects under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act for funding to promote problem-solving through consensus building and on-the-ground decision-making on the management of federal lands.

Coming together to protect the backcountry- op ed by Jim Risch and Chris Wood

by
Moose in the Great Burn Roadless Area in Idaho, photo by John McCarthy

From Oregonlive here. Thanks to Terry Seyden!

October marks the fifth anniversary of the state of Idaho’s petition to develop its own rule governing the management of backcountry inventoried roadless areas on national forests within the state. When the petition was issued, it might have seemed unlikely that the two of us–one of whom helped write the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and the other who litigated against it–would find ourselves commemorating the success of an Idaho-specific roadless rule five years later. The fact that we are is a testament to the power of collaboration and of problem-solving approaches to contentious natural resource issues.

What’s more, our success on this issue occurred as the courtroom battle over the 2001 Roadless Rule rages on. The most recent decision from the 10th Circuit Court reinstates the rule, but we have no doubt that legal maneuvers will continue.

What brought us together was the realization that Idaho’s backcountry areas are too important to allow political bickering to compromise some of the best fish and wildlife habitat and hunting and angling opportunities on the planet. Shortly after Idaho petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop the Idaho rule, numerous meetings were held throughout the state, seeking comments from each and every stakeholder including commissioners from all affected counties. With input from timber companies, counties, conservation interests and others, Idaho crafted a rule to manage and protect, where appropriate, the state’s 9 million acres of national forest roadless areas. The Idaho rule was put into effect in 2008. Today Idaho enjoys arguably the strongest protection for roadless areas in the United States.

Thanks to the Idaho Roadless Rule, Idaho has protected some of the best big-game hunting and longest hunting seasons in the region. Unlike other states, hunters in Idaho don’t have to wonder if they will draw an elk tag, because Idaho offers over-the-counter tags for backcountry hunts. Likewise, anglers can enjoy Idaho’s high-country lakes and cool mountain streams that teem with wild and native trout. As a result, the lands protected by the Idaho rule help sustain an $808 million hunting, fishing and wildlife-associated recreation economy in the state.

Conservation is most durable when it involves the widest array of interests. By genuinely listening to everyone’s concerns and interests, we were able to balance and craft a roadless rule that met the needs of county commissioners, conservation enthusiasts, timber interests, recreation users and others. The process produced a close working relationship we call collaborative stewardship. It moved away from the tired battles between environmentalists and land users where competing interests are pitted against each other and it affirmed President Theodore Roosevelt’s belief that conservation should result in the application of common sense to common problems for the common good.

We believe collaborative stewardship could help to resolve other long-standing vexing natural resource challenges. Few issues, for example, have been more contentious than the recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. For 10 years, lawyers have filed briefs over the adequacy of a recovery plan for salmon. Recent increases in the numbers of returning salmon have done nothing to slow that debate.

The answers to this challenge need not be decided in court. As the Idaho Roadless Rule demonstrates, we can continue to find long-term solutions that are good for fish and people by bringing together those who are affected and creating a dialogue.

While the Idaho roadless petition was issued in 2006, the final rule was not published until 2008. It took time to travel the state seeking input from the public, land users and all stakeholders and to build consensus among interest groups who often disagree over natural resource issues. But in the end, we were able to achieve a result that will benefit generations of Americans. Collaborative stewardship is not fast and it certainly is not easy, but if the objectives are meeting the needs of people while protecting the health of the land, it is the right way to go and the right thing to do.

Jim Risch, elected a U.S. Republican senator for Idaho in 2008, is a former governor of Idaho; Chris Wood is the president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, with national headquarters in Arlington, Va.

Collaborative Groups as Friends of the Court?

by

In terms of what Mike said here about other groups (such as collaborative groups) filing in lawsuits as friends of the court, I would think that if it works for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, it would work for local collaborative groups (if they could afford attorneys, or perhaps law students could volunteer to support these groups). Hopefully, more knowledgeable people can tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree here.

Here’s the link.

Bay Foundation, others can join restoration suit
By ALEX DOMINGUEZ Associated Press​
Posted: 10/13/2011 02:49:17 PM MDT
Updated: 10/13/2011 03:45:13 PM MDT

BALTIMORE—The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other groups can join a court fight over bay restoration efforts, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Thursday.

The bay advocacy group, other environmental organizations and associations representing sewer authorities asked to side with the federal Environmental Protection Agency​ as defendants in the suit. The American Farm Bureau Federation sued the EPA in January over the stricter federally led effort and other groups have since joined the challenge. Critics say it is too far-reaching and will burden states with huge costs.

U.S. District Sylvia H. Rambo said the groups may help settle the complex case.

“In fact, given the complexity and voluminous size of the administrative record, which includes scientific models, the court finds that the presence of the intervenors may serve to clarify issues and, perhaps, contribute to resolution of this matter,” Rambo said in her order.

A telephone call by The Associated Press seeking comment from the American Farm Bureau Federation was not immediately returned Thursday afternoon.

Foundation attorney Jon Mueller said the groups were “looking forward to arguing this case in order to ensure that Bay restoration moves forward, and that all do their part to reduce pollution.”

The other environmental groups joining the foundation in the motion were Penn Future, Defenders of Wildlife, the Jefferson County Public Service District, the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which represents sewer authorities nationwide, also sought to intervene with state sewer authority associations. The head of the association said in May that his organization has some concerns about the EPA’s strategy, but is much more concerned with attempts by the plaintiffs to walk away from the process.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William Baker accused the plaintiffs on Thursday of trying to halt the restoration process.

“The effort to derail Bay restoration must be stopped, here and now,” Baker said. “We are pleased we can be part of defending the Bay restoration effort and are confident that the court will uphold the public’s right to clean water.”

The EPA’s strategy puts everyone in the six-state bay watershed on a “pollution diet” with daily limits for how much sediment and runoff can come from each area. Pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer, auto and power plant emissions cause oxygen-robbing algae blooms once they reach the bay, creating dead zones where sea life can’t live.

Farmers and agriculture interests are concerned about the strategy because agriculture is the single largest source of bay pollutants, according to the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay model. While agriculture has made gains in reducing bay pollution, the strategy calls for even more reductions from all sectors.

———

Colt Summit Map and FWS Concurrence Letter

by

It seems like this project has led to much discussion so..
Here’s the map of this project..

Given the discussion of wildlife impacts on previous posts, I thought it might be enlightening to review the FWS letter on the project.
Here is the link (the FWS letter is listed under “supporting”):

The proposed action consists of activities to improve habitat conditions for wildlife and restore forest conditions by developing a diverse mix of vegetative composition and structure that better represents historical conditions for the area. Activities include: vegetative treatments including prescribed fire on about 2,043 acres; decommissioning 4.1 miles of road along Colt creek; maintaining approximately 17 miles of existing roads under Forest jurisdiction and implementing BMPs where necessary; constructing approximately 3 miles of temporary roads and snowroads;
storing or decommissioning 25.2 additional miles of road; allowing 9.9 miles of road which is closed to public access and naturally restored to remain in this condition; replacing two aquatic barrier culverts; and conducting ground-based noxious weed herbicide treatments. All temporary roads and snowroads would be decommissioned following completion of the vegetation management activities. The proposed action consists of two distinct parcels that lie directly across highway 83 from one another and are in close proximity to a cluster of private homes.

Further information regarding the proposed action was provided in the biological assessment. The Service has reviewed the biological assessment and concurs with the determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), or designated critical habitat for Canada lynx. Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.13 (a), formal consultation on these species is not required.
The Service bases its concurrence on the information and analysis in the biological assessment prepared by Scott Tomson, East Zone Wildlife Biologist. The proposed action is located within the Northern Continental Dived grizzly bear ecosystem (NCDE), in the Swan subunit and the Mission subunit, and outside of the NCDE where grizzly bears may occur. Although temporary roads will be constructed during the grizzly bear non-denning period, they will only be used for harvesting activities during the grizzly bear denning period with the exception of units 6 and 7 which are located along Highway 83. These temporary roads would primarily be snowroads, would only be used for access/hauling, would be closed yearlong to the public, and would be decommissioned upon project completion. Some BMP would be conducted on approximately 7.1 miles of roads and trails. The best grizzly bear habitat in the vicinity of the project provides spring habitat and the majority of road work, including road construction, would occur from July 1 through April 1, outside of the spring period. The road along Colt Creek would be decommissioned and re-routed in lower quality habitat at mid slope, closer to private land along the Highway 83 corridor. Although this re-route would result in a half mile increase in linear road density, the action would result in a more desirable condition for grizzly bears overall. Upon completion of the project, total road density would decrease by 4 percent and security core would increase by 1 percent (330 acres) within the Mission Subunit. Open road density would decrease by 1 percent within the Swan subunit. Also, the re-routed road would be closed during the spring season (April 1 through June 30). In addition to access management related impacts, project related activities may result in minor effects to cover; however, adequate forest cover would be retained within the action area. The potential for some activities to result in disturbance to grizzly bears does exist. However, most of the activity would occur during the grizzly bear denning period. Also, adequate displacement areas within the Bob Marshal Wilderness and Mission Mountain Wilderness are within close proximity to the project activities. A district-wide bear attractant order is in place which requires safe storage of all bear attractants.
The proposed action is located with the Clearwater Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) in areas also designated as critical habitat for Canada lynx, containing primary constituent elements (PCEs). No precommercial thinning is planned and the stands selected for treatment are not considered mesic, multi-storied forests providing quality snowshoe hare habitat (lynx foraging habitat). Therefore, lynx foraging habitat (PCE1a) would not be impacted. Some temporary snowroads would be constructed for harvesting activities and most activity will occur during the winter. Therefore, some additional snow compaction would occur as a result of the action. However, such impacts would be minimal to lynx and to PCE1b. The project area is not considered to be high quality denning habitat (PCE1c). Large blocks of mature forest with significant amounts of coarse woody debris occur within the LAU and denning habitat is not considered limiting on the landscape. Therefore, impacts to denning habitat (PCE1c) would be minimal. Finally, the project area includes some matrix habitat (PCE1d). All treatments proposed would maintain the forested nature of the stands, thus maintaining the ability of lynx to travel through matrix habitat (PCE1d). Habitat connectivity would be maintained and the action would not result in permanent destruction of lynx or snowshoe hare habitat. The proposed action is consistent with all applicable standards and guidelines of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction.
We agree with the conclusions in the biological assessment that project related impacts to grizzly bears, Canada lynx, and designated critical habitat for Canada lynx would be insignificant.

Collaboration Can’t Fix What Ails Public Forest Management

by

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for sending this..

Collaboration Can’t Fix What Ails Public Forest Management

By Steve Kelly, Friends of the Wild Swan

For decades, forest activists have performed vital oversight, monitoring and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Caused by the rapid rise of neoliberalism, beginning in earnest during the Reagan administration, Congress and administrative agencies largely avoided policy responsibilities associated with our environmental laws. Politicians and agency bureaucrats have been screaming bloody murder about grassroots environmentalists and “gridlock” ever since. The simple fact remains, the primary cause of “gridlock” is the government’s systematic refusal to follow environmental laws and regulations.

The steady rise of neoliberalism in the Clinton years led to the now commonplace sharp political rhetoric, which directs its attacks toward the legitimacy of local grassroots forest activism. Add to this a proliferation of market-based, professional “problem solvers” touting “win-win” solutions and jobs, and one can see the game is rigged in favor of those with a vested financial interest in subsidized commodity extraction. This approach is typically dismissive of science and the law and grassroots activism.

Stakeholder partnerships prefer to engage in consensus and collaboration processes which favor a narrow, economics-based view of forest ecosystems. When challenged, collaborative stakeholders say one thing, and do the opposite, which usually leads to more old growth logging, and bulldozing new roads to access the remaining pockets of big, old trees.

One recent example of collaboration gone wild is the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which was authorized in 2009 under the Omnibus Land Management Act. The stated purpose of this collaborative program is to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes.

In practice, normal environmental assessment procedures, required by the National Environmental Procedures Act (NEPA), are being undermined by making decisions that may affect thousands of acres of public forest before conducting proper analysis of forseeable environmental impacts, especially cumulative impacts. Full funding has already been allocated by Congress and the Obama administration to a program that lacks a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NEPA just becomes a speed bump at the end.

Once a project has been selected a work plan and business plan must be developed within 180 days. These plans describe how projects will be implemented, treatment costs, infrastructure needed, projected supply of woody biomass and timber and the local economic benefits.

The work plan is then submitted to the Regional Forester for approval. Project
implementation may begin once the requesting unit has been notified that the work plan
has been approved.

All of this indicates that any NEPA will be front-loaded.

Here is a copy of the Friends of the Wild Swan Newsletter
**************************
I read this piece, but I don’t understand it. I know some things about NEPA but perhaps not as much as I should about CFLRP, so perhaps readers could enlighten me.

What does Mr. Kelly want a programmatic EIS on? A specific project?

NEPA doesn’t say that agencies can’t work with the public in developing proposals to be analyzed, in fact one of the ideas in NEPA is fostering public involvement. Doesn’t it make sense to develop a proposal before you analyze it? How else could it work? Would it be better for agencies to develop proposals without the public? Maybe I’m missing something here…

And I wonder about this quote:

Stakeholder partnerships prefer to engage in consensus and collaboration processes which favor a narrow, economics-based view of forest ecosystems. When challenged, collaborative stakeholders say one thing, and do the opposite, which usually leads to more old growth logging, and bulldozing new roads to access the remaining pockets of big, old trees.

It is a pretty broad brush statement about “stakeholder partnerships.” I think that some of the collaborators around the country might question whether their view is “narrow, and economics-based”. They might see themselves as seeing the big picture of sustaining the land and people, and working respectfully with each other to understand different views and find the best solutions. They might see others as “lawsuit-happy ideologues.” 😉

Sharon

Colt Summit- Garrity Editorial

by

Here’s the link, thanks to Matthew Koehler for submitting this..

Guest column by MIKE GARRITY | Posted: Thursday, October 6, 2011
Government has to follow laws as well

How ironic is it that while the Missoulian was chastising the Alliance for the Wild Rockies for filing a lawsuit to protect the environment in its editorial last Sunday (Oct. 2) the Alliance, the Environmental Protection Agency and Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality had just reached an agreement in a lawsuit originally brought by the Alliance 14 years ago.

The agreement has huge benefits for cleaning up Montana’s rivers, streams and lakes that would not have happened without the lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreement. Here’s a direct quote from the Reuters article that appeared in the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune and other major papers and media outlets nationwide.

“Richard Opper, head of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, credited the 14-year-old lawsuit brought by environmentalists with making the state ‘get its act together.’ ‘We lost the original case, and we deserved to lose,’ he told Reuters in a telephone interview on Monday. ‘In the old days, we weren’t following that federal law very well. Now we have a new attitude, and we are doing the right thing.’ ”

Opper’s quote and the credit he gives the Alliance for bringing the lawsuit is timely considering the Missoulian editorial board’s stance. More importantly, it brings the seminal issue to the forefront: We are a nation of laws, not a nation where a handful of “collaborators” can decide which laws will or won’t be followed. Government agencies, just like the rest of us, have to follow the law.

Had the “collaborative” Colt-Summit logging project – for which the Missoulian criticized the Alliance – followed federal law, the Alliance would have applauded it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The agency refused to follow the law or heed well-documented evidence. And so, as part of the process proscribed by law, we were forced to file a lawsuit in federal district court to stop this timber sale for the sake of taxpayers as well as the elk, fish, grizzly bears, lynx and a myriad of other old growth dependent species that rely on unlogged national forests.

Consider these points:

• The plan to log federally designated critical habitat for lynx and bull trout as well as prime grizzly habitat violates a host of federal laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act.

• The Forest Service’s own analysis notes that 94 percent of the project is in an area that the Lolo Forest Plan requires to be managed for the benefit of grizzly bears as its top priority. The agency also admits that logging and the new roads that go with it will reduce important wildlife hiding cover and that similar logging on adjacent private lands has harmed big game and grizzly bear habitat. Yet, the agency and the collaborators who support the logging plan fail to explain how reduction of existing cover levels on our national forests can possibly be called “restoration.”

• Contrary to Forest Service claims, the logging destroys lynx habitat since it drives out the snowshoe hare and ground squirrels, upon which they prey. The Forest Service’s own research show that lynx do not use forest lands that have been recently clearcut or thinned. In fact, forests that have been logged in the Seeley-Swan Valley are avoided by lynx.

• The Forest Service’s own environmental assessment reveals that this timber sale will cost taxpayers over $1.5 million with little in return except the destruction of critical wildlife habitat. Given the current national debate over government spending, an expensive and destructive timber sale to benefit a for-profit corporation is not defensible.

• The Alliance and its environmental allies fully participated in the Colt Summit process, which is required before anyone can file a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service’s decision.

“Collaborators” do not make laws – and we all have to follow the law. The Missoulian would do its readers a favor by remembering that before it criticizes the Alliance for the Wild Rockies – or any other citizen group – for trying to get the federal government to follow the law.

Mike Garrity is executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.