Blue Mountains revision restart – FS stumbles out of the gate

The three forest supervisors for the national forests in the Blue Mountains published a guest column with an invitation to meet with any and all interested parties as part of a “re-engagement strategy for the communities in the Blue Mountains.”  Unfortunately they also chose to make an off-script policy statement:

We want Forest Plans that provide resiliency for our communities in Eastern Oregon and Washington; Plans that support the local economy and the social values of the people who use and depend on them. We also want resiliency in ecosystems that can withstand: drought, floods, wildfire, invasive species, human impacts and have the strength to return to healthy ecosystems in the long run.

These plans are being developed under the 1982 planning regulations, but that does not excuse them from the agency policy on “resilience” (which I’m fairly sure is not found in the 1982 regulations).  In the 2012 Planning Rule, the term resilient/resilience is used only in the definitions of “restoration” and “viable population,” and the concept of “resilient ecosystems” (or “healthy ecosystems”) was replaced by “ecological integrity.”

Most importantly, the Planning Rule never uses the term “resiliency” in connection with social or economic factors.  It recognizes that forest plans can NOT “provide resiliency” for communities, and that this should not be used as a justification to support any particular local business or values.  Under the 2012 Rule, forest plans must “guide the plan area’s contribution to social and economic sustainability.”  And this is not limited to local interests, but instead explicitly extends to “the area influenced by the plan” and regional and national economies.

When you start by over-promising, there is a good chance you’re going to under-deliver (again).

Court Rules In Favor Of Rim Fire Logging

Coincidentally, this on the Rim Fire litigation..from a local paper..here is the link and below an excerpt. No need for photos, thanks to Larry!

Sonora, CA — Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals nixed an argument by a group of nonlocal environmentalists that Rim Fire recovery logging threatens spotted owl habitat, effectively removing a potential log-jam to current clean-up efforts.

According to Stanislaus National Forest spokesperson Rebecca Garcia, “The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the US Forest Service on the Rim Fire case, and so the U.S. Forest Service, the Stanislaus National Forest will continue forward on the Rim Fire recovery efforts.” She adds, as far as the work being done, “Nothing had never stopped. The litigants had appealed to the courts back in August to get a stay to try to halt the work…out on the landscape…while they were putting together their case. But that was not granted and work has continued…until weather did not allow it…and it started up again this spring…and will continue as long as the wood is good.”

The court’s decision, which was filed in San Francisco Tuesday, leaves the plaintiffs, the Center for Biological Diversity, Earth Island Institute and California Chaparral Institute a final option: to see if the Supreme Court will hear their case. That route is both uncertain and likely to take more months than the planned scope of recovery efforts. The Ninth Circuit judges indicated in their decision that the plaintiffs had not established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under the National Environmental Policy Act. Additionally, the judges indicated that the Forest Service had re-established six protected activity centers where surveys detected owl presence; and accurately addressed the scientific literature on owl occupancy in post-fire, high-severity burn habitat.

Here’s to all the folks who worked on this case!!!

Interview with Mike Petersen on Collaboration

Thanks to a reader for finding this interview with Mike Petersen Executive Director of the Spokane-based Lands Council by Jim Petersen… on his group’s changing from a litigation strategy to a collaborative strategy.

Below is an excerpt:

Evergreen: When you set out to find common ground, what was your first area of agreement?

Petersen: Neither of us liked what the Forest Service was doing. By that I mean we did not feel that the agency was listening to us. It’s a huge bureaucracy, and one in which the only way to get promoted is to move from job to job. Staff is never in one place long enough to learn much about the forest or the community. It’s a terrible way to run a business.

Evergreen: How have you overcome the bureaucratic nature of the Forest Service?

Petersen: Personalities are key to forest collaborative success. We have a real pearl in Mary Farnsworth, who is the supervisor on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. She’s very supportive. We also got a lot of help from Rick Brazell, who was supervisor on the Colville National Forest when we were getting started. I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the Forest Service is an immovable object. That’s not the case, but it takes work and a willingness to try new things.

Evergreen: How many collaborative successes can you count since you started out?

Petersen: About three dozen over the last 12 years. Most have been on the Colville because that’s where we started, but I can count eight projects on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest and maybe five on the Kootenai in northwest Montana. In total, about 50,000 acres.

Evergreen: Apart from personalities, what drives success?

Petersen: All collaboratives are place-based, which is another way of saying that all politics are local. Collaboratives gain lots of strength from local knowledge, from the participation of people who have lived in a particular area long enough to develop an understanding of its social, economic and cultural idiosyncrasies. Some conservationists believe local people are a detriment because they believe their decisions are always based on preserving their economy at the expense of the environment. We haven’t found this to be true. What they seek is a more balanced consideration of local need. We agree.

Evergreen: But you still have to gain consensus with people who live a long way from rural timber communities and have little or no economic stake in your deliberations.

Petersen: That’s true, which is why the work we do on the ground has to speak for itself, and it has to be based on consensus among stakeholders who are involved in the collaborative.

Advice for the Tongass young-growth plan amendment

Though some doubted it could be done, the group of industry leaders, scientists, conservationists and government representatives has reached a consensus: the Tongass Advisory Committee has submitted its draft recommendations for managing timber harvests in the national forest that covers much of Southeast Alaska.

There are lots of interesting ideas here; maybe some becoming relevant beyond Alaska as the Forest Service gets out of the old-growth business everywhere.  Here’s one that surprised me:

It asks for changes in leadership, with more power given to regional foresters.  “This runs counter to the current culture in which District Rangers, in order to be safe and not take any risk, simply layer on Interdisciplinary Team suggestions for protection, without paying attention to redundancies,” the draft reads, “lead(ing) to a collision of restrictions that result in low volume and non-economic projects … or extinguishes projects altogether.”

It’s also counter the culture of decentralization.  It seems to be a proposal to take more risks, which I would expect to lead to more litigation.  On the other hand, I got the impression over the years that those at higher levels understood the risks better and were less likely to take them.  But then they are closer to the politicians, too.  (Maybe there’s some other perceptions out there.)

Swiss Dude with Outsized Policy Influence

swiss dude

A shout-out to E&E News, and to an unnamed blog reader for sending this in.. I think this piece is important just because as a person up to my gills in some of these controversies, I had never heard of this chap. As regular readers know, it makes me uncomfortable from a social justice perspective that our country has set up a governance system for public lands that enfranchises some (rich people who have foundations) at the expense of others (people who work at the mill or make their living from ranching). It makes me uncomfortable from a political perspective that the views of distant landowners (e.g, this Swiss dude) override the views of local people and their elected officials. It sounds a bit, well, colonialist. And I know that is the way it is currently set up, but it just doesn’t seem right to me. Below is the article and some of the groups mentioned in certain of my experience have pretty much dictated policy (as in, if this group doesn’t like the wording, the policy ain’t happening). Again, much thanks to E&E for publishing this piece.)

A Swiss billionaire is forging a conservation legacy across the western United States and having an outsized influence on federal policies.

His name: Hansjorg Wyss.

The media-shy 79-year-old built a $6 billion fortune manufacturing medical devices, and he’s pledged to give more than half of it away to preserve the American West, among other philanthropic pursuits.

Hansjorg Wyss (pronounced “Hans-yorg Wees”) and his nonprofit, the Wyss Foundation, have so far donated more than $350 million to acquire land and buoy dozens of green groups molding lands policy in Washington, D.C., and Western communities.

“Hansjorg Wyss is a godsend to the conservation community,” said Bill Meadows, former president of the Wilderness Society, which has received significant Wyss funding. “Without their funding, all of our organizations would be much less equipped to do serious research, serious policy analysis.”

Industry-aligned groups say Wyss promotes radical environmentalists who block energy development and destroy jobs on Western lands.

“Wyss’s foreign money — tens of millions of dollars of it — takes American natural resources out of productive uses,” according to a profile of Wyss by the Center for Organizational Research and Education. The center is run by Richard Berman, a D.C. public relations consultant who runs attack campaigns against green groups.

Love him or hate him, Wyss’ policy footprint on Western lands is growing.

In late 2013, Wyss signed the “Giving Pledge,” an initiative started by Warren Buffet and Bill and Melinda Gates that asks wealthy individuals to give at least half of their wealth to charity.

Among Wyss’ biggest gifts:

$4.25 million in 2013 to help buy back 58,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Wyoming’s Hoback Basin, a prized retreat for rafters, fishermen and hunters, and a major migration route for wildlife.

$2 million in 2013 to remove the century-old Veazie Dam and restore fish passage in Maine’s Penobscot River.

$35 million in 2010 to help purchase 310,000 acres of private timberlands to protect grizzly bear and wolverine habitat in northern Montana, stitching together a checkerboard of federal, state and private lands.

In 2013, the politically connected Wyss Foundation quietly donated roughly $19 million, much of it to conservation nonprofits that lobby for new wilderness and national monuments and curbs on drilling, mining and grazing on public lands, according to the foundation’s most recent 990 report to the Internal Revenue Service.

The foundation gets relatively little media exposure given its influence. Wyss gives few interviews and declined to speak for this article.

Mr. Wyss

Wyss, 79, is an avid hiker and major supporter of Western land conservation. Photo courtesy of the Wyss Foundation.

Yet environmental leaders and former Interior Department officials say Wyss is in a pantheon of conservation luminaries that includes William Hewlett and David Packard.

“His foundation has become one of the pillars of philanthropy in the American West,” said David Hayes, who served as Interior deputy secretary during President Obama’s first term and was a senior fellow for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, another major backer of land conservation.

Wyss’ foundation, which has more than $2 billion in assets, in the past several months has expanded its philanthropic work beyond the West. It gave $10 million to rebuild ocean fisheries in Peru and Canada, $6 million to combat illegal wildlife trafficking in eastern Africa, and $385,000 to support environmental journalism, including two new reporting jobs in D.C. and Denver.

Wyss’ work is filling a major funding gap as Republicans propose gutting federal conservation programs and as another major lands funder, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, is pulling back from the West.

Packard recently concluded a six-year, $122 million Western conservation program, leaving some of its grantees in a financial hole.

The program, which was led by Rhea Suh before she left in 2009 to head the Interior Department’s budget office, was “one of the largest environmental initiatives by philanthropy” in the West’s history, even though it fell well short of its $200 million funding goal, according to a report released this month by California Environmental Associates.

“Many organizations grew in size and sophistication during the subprogram, but some are finding it difficult to secure funding to replace the Packard Foundation investments,” the report concluded.

‘Abiding love’ for the West

Wyss, who splits his time between his native Switzerland and his home in Wilson, Wyo., at the foot of the Teton Range, is an avid outdoorsman who has hiked some of the most remote landscapes in the Lower 48.

“I know the West like my back pocket,” Wyss said in a 2010 interview with the Associated Press.

His love for the West began in 1958, when he took a summer job as a surveyor for the Colorado Highway Department. Wyss was impressed that public lands in the United States had been preserved from development and kept open to all its citizens.

In the Swiss Alps, there were already “too many ski lifts, too many resorts, too many hotels,” he told the AP. “In the United States, we have a chance to protect some of them, not only for Americans but for people all around the world to benefit.”

Wyss returned to the United States to attend the Harvard Business School, where he earned a Master of Business Administration in 1965.

Wyss built his fortune through medical device manufacturer Synthes USA, which he founded in 1974 and sold in 2012 to Johnson & Johnson for $20.2 billion cash and stock, according to Forbes.

His trips west to hike the Rocky Mountains and explore the Grand Canyon were catalysts for his later philanthropic work, according to people who know him. He still hikes, cross-country skis, climbs mountains and backpacks.

He is a “quietly philanthropic person” with “an abiding love affair with the West,” said Chris Wood, president of Trout Unlimited, which has received more than $6.5 million from Wyss over the past decade, Wood said.

“He is a guy who brings intellect, knowledge, passion and commitment together,” Meadows said.

Wyss’ hiking prowess belies his age, said Bill Hedden, executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust.

Hedden said he hiked with Wyss six years ago in the Grand Canyon along “the most difficult, treacherous route on the South Rim,” a multi-day trek that required scrambling down steep talus fields and skimming across razor-sharp Kaibab limestone.

More recently, Wyss and Hedden plumbed “the Maze,” a remote, sandstone labyrinth in Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah that requires experienced route finding and a high level of self-reliance. The expedition navigated a half-foot of snow and temperatures nearing single digits, Hedden said.

“You go out with Hansjorg, and you’re probably in for a real expedition,” Hedden said. “He connects to the place by loving the place.”

Wyss has a daughter, Amy, who lives in Wyoming and is also a billionaire, according to Forbes.

According to Wyss Foundation President Molly McUsic, Wyss spends little time in D.C. and rarely meets with policymakers. The foundation has 14 staff members in D.C. and Durango, Colo., but it does not lobby or take policy positions, she said.

Yet the foundation has deep connections to the Beltway.

McUsic was a counselor to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt during the Clinton administration, where she was involved in the designation of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and seven other national monuments under the Antiquities Act in 2000.

The Wyss Foundation’s vice chairman, John Leshy, served as Babbitt’s solicitor and was co-chairman of the Obama administration transition team for the Interior Department.

Past and current Wyss consultants have served in high levels of the Obama administration.

John Podesta, who until last month was Obama’s top environmental adviser, was paid $87,000 for “consulting” by the HJW Foundation, another of Wyss’ foundations (now merged into the larger Wyss Foundation), according to Podesta’s financial disclosure statement.

Matt Lee-Ashley, who was a top Interior official during Obama’s first term and is now director of public lands for the Center for American Progress, is a part-time consultant for Wyss, whose foundations have donated millions of dollars to CAP.

In addition to his philanthropy, Wyss is on the governing council of the Wilderness Society and serves on boards of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Grand Canyon Trust and CAP — major movers and shakers in federal lands policy.

Who gets money

The foundation’s 2013 grant recipients are a who’s who of Western lands advocacy.

The largest grant was $2.9 million for the New Venture Fund, whose initiatives include the Western Energy Project and which supports the “responsible development of oil, gas, and oil shale on our federal public lands” in the Rocky Mountain West, according to NVF’s website.

Wyss gave nearly the same amount to Trout Unlimited; about $2.5 million to the Portland, Ore.-based Western Rivers Conservancy; and $1.5 million to the Durango-based Conservation Lands Foundation, which supports the Bureau of Land Management’s National Conservation Lands and the designation of new national monuments.

Smaller grants went to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership ($750,000), Backcountry Hunters and Anglers ($300,000), the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance ($280,000), Great Old Broads for Wilderness ($90,000) and WildEarth Guardians ($53,000).

“We look at a wide range of organizations that are looking to expand public access” to Western lands, McUsic said. “We look for groups that are building support locally.”

Unlike its foundation peers, Wyss money is almost exclusively dedicated to land conservation. A big chunk of Wyss funding is for general support for nongovernmental organizations, rather than specific projects.

“They give grants to organizations that know their stuff and then they get out of the way,” Wood said. “They don’t micromanage.”

But foundations that receive Wyss money issue their own grants — often with discreet policy objectives like designating national monuments, bolstering conservation funding or lobbying lands agencies to set aside public lands from drilling.

Take the Denver-based Western Conservation Foundation, which received $1.6 million from Wyss in 2013. WCF that year issued dozens of grants to mobilize sportsmen, Hispanics, veterans and business owners to support conservation of public lands, according to its 990.

WCF gave $198,000 to the Portland-based Vet Voice Foundation to support designation of the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico — which Obama declared a monument in March 2013 — and to “elevate veterans’ voices on conservation.”

WCF gave more than $100,000 to other nonprofits to support protections for Nevada’s Gold Butte and Idaho’s Boulder-White Clouds area, which are candidates for national monument designations, and New Mexico’s Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks and Colorado’s Browns Canyon, which were recently designated by the president.

The WCF grants also supported direct advocacy with top Interior officials.

One $5,000 grant to Visit Mendocino County Inc. was for “thanking Sally Jewell for visiting Mendocino County” after the Interior secretary in late 2013 visited the county’s Stornetta Public Lands, which conservationists and business groups including Visit Mendocino were lobbying Obama to designate as a national monument.

In March 2014, Obama used the Antiquities Act to add 1,665 acres of the Stornetta public lands to the California Coastal National Monument.

WCF in 2013 also donated $46,000 to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership for a “sportsmen reception for Sally Jewell & briefing for policy makers.”

The Wyss Foundation gave about $4.5 million from 2011 to 2013 to the Conservation Lands Foundation, where Wyss is a founding board member. CLF supports friends groups that help BLM maintain its national monu””We look at a wide range of organizations that are looking to expand public access” to Western lands, McUsic said. “We look for groups that are building support locally.”

Spotted Owls and the NW Forest Plan- Do We Have a Formal Lessons Learned?

Bird is still declining.. have we learned anything?
Bird is still declining.. have we learned anything?

I ran across this from Bob Berwyn the other day..below is an excerpt. Here are a couple of thoughts from me.

First, according to DellaSalla (not really an objective person, but…) “proposed logging on the Klamath National Forest across 40,000 acres could adversely impact 70 spotted owl activity centers.” Yet info I have from people working in the woods in Oregon suggests that there are many, many protections in pace for actual activity centers. So how would that actually work? Are the protections not thought to be effective in some specific way by DellaSalla?

Second, in my opinion, because a species is outcompeted does not mean that the “older forests” are in danger.. they are just one species. You could argue that the American Chestnut was certainly more of a “flagship species” and more important to a variety of species, and the Appalachian forests are still going strong.. they are just different.

Third, if we follow “habitat loss” as being always a problem, regardless of the importance of other factors, then should Oregon put a moratorium on any housebuilding or other forms of loss? Or is it only timber sales? (this reminds me a bit of Indiana bat). My concern is just about the logic and utility of, if something difficult to stop is the problem (say a disease, or a competitor), stopping everything else just because you can stop the other things. It seems to me like the policy equivalent of the “streetlight effect.”

Fourth, and relating to the title of this post, it seems to me that the NW Forest Plan was a great experiment (by “great” I mean with extremely significant impacts over broad acreages, not necessarily successful in terms of meeting any specific stated objectives) and if the fire folks can do “lessons learned” on fires that clearly impact folks and ecosystems less than the NW Forest Plan, shouldn’t someone do it on this effort?

We could get public involvement on the questions to ask. Some that have occurred to me are: could we have predicted the barred owl? Why did we think habitat management would take care of the owl when clearly it hasn’t?
Was the degree of monitoring necessary? Could it have been done at lower cost?

How much are the Feds and State (all branches) spending on: monitoring, studying, shooting barred owls? Could these efforts be better coordinated across agencies and the level of info improved? What info do we really need today, given all that we have learned?

Could the Plan in general have met more of the objectives at a lower social and economic cost? Could it have been more successful biologically?

When the President was there, it seemed like there was political compromise and interaction with the public and elected officials. How did that interact with the history since and the use of ESA as a policy instrument?

What about the whole interagency management group? How much money did that cost? If coordinating among agencies was successful there, is it a model that should be replicated?

Maybe all of this is known, and of course, I haven’t been watching it very closely as I haven’t been working in the NW for a while. But it seems like something that deserves some serious formal attention.

According to the USFWS, the two main threats to the survival of the northern spotted owl are habitat loss and competition from barred owls. Barred owls have spread westward, encroaching on spotted owl territories and out-competing them.

Conservation advocates said the USFWS must acknowledge the role of habitat loss as a key factor in the continued decline of the species.

“The spotted owl is a flagship species that symbolizes the plight of older forests in the Pacific Northwest,” said Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist with the Geos Institute. “The owl and older forests share a common plight, each hanging on to what little remains under the auspices of the Northwest Forest Plan,” said DellaSala, who was on the US Fish & Wildlife Service recovery team for the owl from 2006-2008.

The old-growth forests of the region, stretching from California’s redwoods to the Olympic Peninsula’s majestic spruce-hemlock forests, are critical for other imperiled species, including the marbled murrelet, Pacific fisher, red-tree vole (southern Oregon coast), as well as Pacific salmon runs. Today only about 20 percent of these ancient forests remain, primarily on federal lands.

“Tthe best way to save the spotted owl and hundreds of species that depend on similar old forest habitat is to protect more habitat from logging so spotted owls can eventually co-exist with invading barred owls.”

The Northwest Forest Plan has helped reduce habitat loss on federal lands since 1994, but the threat from barred owls has intensified. Preliminary results from an experiment testing the effects of removing barred owls from select areas of northern spotted owl habitat show promise in benefitting northern spotted owls and will help inform this review.

“The best tools we have to prevent spotted owls from going extinct are continued habitat protection and barred owl management, both of which are recommended in the recovery plan,” said Paul Henson, Oregon supervisor for the USFWS.

“On a positive note, the experimental removal of barred owls is showing real promise, with early reports indicating that spotted owl populations rebound when barred owl populations are reduced. Our review of the spotted owl will tell us whether current efforts to address threats are sufficient.”

According to DellaSala, federal agencies may actually be hindering the recovery of the spotted owl by permitting more logging activities in the region.

For example, proposed logging on the Klamath National Forest across 40,000 acres could adversely impact 70 spotted owl activity centers.

To save the rainforest, let the locals take control

Image: Andrzej Krauze)
Image: Andrzej Krauze)

All, I am catching up with a backlog of posts, thanks to the end of spring quarter. It will probably take me a couple of weeks to work through the pile. FWIW, I now know many things about the New Testament and you can still expect any of my historical references to be from the first, second and third centuries.

Here’s an opinion piece by Fred Pearce in New Scientist. Below is an excerpt and here is a link.

Forest dwellers are typically seen as forest destroyers. But the opposite is often the case, says David Bray of Florida International University.

Bray has spent a lifetime studying Mexico, where rural communities have long-standing ownership of 60 per cent of the country’s forests, and have logged them for timber to sell. This may sound like a recipe for disaster, yet he says that deforestation rates in community-owned forests have been “generally lower than in regions dominated by protected areas”.

One example is in the Yucatan region, where communities outperformed the local Calakmul Biosphere Reserve 200-fold.

Why? Because, Bray says, “communities with rights to resources conserve those resources; communities without rights have no reason to conserve… and deforestation will ensue”. Andrew Steer, the head of the Washington DC-based environment group the World Resources Institute, agrees: “If you want to stop deforestation, give legal rights to communities.”

Some environmentalists pay lip service to this new conservation narrative. But too often, forest communities face growing efforts by outsiders to grab their land in the name of conservation.

Forests for whom and for what?

With apologies to Marion Clawson (the year before NFMA), but we’re still asking that question.

Secure Rural Schools meets forest planning on the Mark Twain.  This is a real example of the reasons why Congress has tried to break the connection between commercial use of national forests and revenues to local governments.

The commission would like to see the management plan changed to allow an increased timber harvest. This would bring in more money for the county’s schools and Road and Bridge Fund. 

“The preservationist mindset at the national forest is hurting our communities,” says Skiles. “We need to ask who the forests belong to, and ensure that they are a multiuse asset for our country.”

We welcome the public’s input,” says Salem Forest Service District Ranger Thom Haines. “We are not revising our management plan yet, but it will be coming up. When we do, we will engage with the public and our leaders to determine the best plan forward.”

A reform of the forest management plan will no doubt stir up another local debate, and concern is already growing over the viability of industrializing the national forest.

“We have to deal with the market,” says Haines. “It’s not as simple as cutting more trees. The counties do get a 25 percent cut of timber sales, but there is a lot of wood harvested now which doesn’t sell. The counties will only get that money if the wood is sold, and if it doesn’t sell quickly, that wood will rot and then it will not be worth anything.”

Among the other issues that will have to be confronted with an increase in logging are; cheaper foreign wood entering the US market, fluctuating wood prices, and the lower quality of timber coming from the Ozarks in comparison to areas with richer soil, better climates and older growth forests.

“We are not a preservationist organization,” says Haines. “The forest service exists to benefit local communities in many ways, including economically. But as Gifford Pinchot once said, we are here to do the greatest good, for the greatest number of people, for the greatest amount of time. That means conservation. What we have to ask ourselves is what conservation means for us today, and for future generations.”

Maybe the Forest Service was too subtle with its suggestion that “the greatest number” part puts the local county’s financial needs in the proper perspective.  At least they are now asking Clawson’s question through the planning process he probably contributed to creating.

Collaboration on plans vs projects

Some observations about the recently revised Kootenai forest plan.

Robyn King, president of the stakeholders’ group, said her organization hasn’t taken a stand on the broader forest plan, although they did publicly support the East Reservoir Project that could result in several small-to-medium timber sales in Lincoln County this year.

“As you can imagine, due to the diversity of our group, there are quite a few opinions about the new forest plan!  The coalition did not work together on a joint response to the forest plan,” King said.

Peck points to the stakeholders’ group as an example of how forest management should take place. “The best solutions come from the closest spot to the impact. Who better to make the decisions than a diverse group of people living here, in and around the forest?”

That involvement will continue, promised King. “What we are looking forward to is our continued involvement at the project level collaborating with each other and with the United States Forest Service to find common ground agreements on vegetative management for the forest,” she said.

Despite the hype associated with the 2012 planning rule’s foray into collaboration, I think this is a more realistic approach.  The broader, regional and national interests that are hard to collaborate with are more relevant to overall strategic planning for national forests than to specific projects.  In addition, the track record so far for collaboration for forest plan revisions is not encouraging.  I would be more inclined to agree with Peck’s statement if he is talking about a project that is being developed consistent with a forest plan that reflects broader interests.