The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views
Community Sourced, Shared and Supported
Following up on last weekend’s post.. on 21st Century Problems. Here’s two from this weekend’s news.
Are campgrounds for the public or for making a profit? By Pete Zimowsky here.
And Illegal pot grows damaging forest land by Tiffany Revelle here.
Why are topics like climate change and ecological restoration more likely to garner funding than the fundamentals of providing campgrounds and keeping federal land safe for the public and not a trashbin for criminals?
From a piece by John Andrews in today’s Denver Post.
Hecklers, on guard. On this Independence Day, in a stormy election year when Americans are out of sorts, I’m fool enough to mount a soapbox and orate upon the proposition that “politics” should be an honored word, not a dirty word, in our vocabulary.
Politics deserves its bad name, you scoff. It’s a hustle wherein we are lied to and led on, defrauded and dumped on. H.L. Mencken nailed it, you say, when he groused that an election is but an advance auction of stolen goods. Will Rogers was right that just as “con” is the opposite of “pro,” so Congress is the opposite of progress. Fie upon the politicians, the parties, and all their tribe.
I concede your indictment — up to a point. But before you let fly with the rotten vegetables, remember that the Greek derivation of politics, 2,500 years and counting, simply denotes those things concerning the community, or city, and its individual members, or citizens. Can we write off those things? Not unless we’re prepared to live in solitude as hermits or in servitude as slaves. I’ll take my chances with politics, messy as it is.
Like any human endeavor, politics can be done in a noble or a base way. July 4 commemorates the noblest political moment of all — our nation’s birth in genius, blood and fire. But the Fourth also looks forward, reminding us how timeless our political challenges are across the centuries, powdered wigs and parchments aside.
Prove it to yourself today by reading quickly through the Declaration of Independence. The framers, after a lofty opening argument on “laws of nature” and “self-evident truths,” enumerate specific grievances like hammer-blows to pound home the case for change. They deliver (speaking of indictments) a 27-count rap sheet convicting king and parliament of intolerable misrule.
This piece is worth a read in its entirety, although the examples are mostly Colorado politics.
Often in natural resource or environmental disputes, we read opinions that infer that politics is inherently bad and that “science” is a better decision tool. You have probably seen the raised eyebrow and sneering tone, as in “that decision was political.”
There are varying degrees of this; one thing they have in common is an apparent lack of reading in the field of science and technology studies. In this field, people study how to use science in policy; yet many of their findings are not listened to or acknowledged by people attempting to make the science-first case. Yes, irony abounds here.
On this Fourth of July, let’s reflect on how we all (whether we like to admit to it or not) are continuing the Nation’s work of politics.
Words to live by for all public servants (and those in the policy business) from the late Senator Byrd.
“In the real world, exemplary personal conduct can sometimes achieve much more than any political agenda. Comity, courtesy, charitable treatment of even our political opposites, combine with a concerted effort to not just occupy our offices, but to bring honor to them, will do more to inspire our people and restore their faith in us, their leaders, than millions of dollars of 30 second spots or glitzy puff pieces concocted by spinmeisters.”
No doubt tired of my whining, Sharon gently threw down the gauntlet — “what you would do if you were Chief for a Year to make things better.” Friday seems a good time to nibble at the bait.
I’d start my tenure by listening to Forest Service leaders. In 2004, Jim Kennedy (Utah State University), Richard Haynes (FS economist) and Xiaoping Zhou (PNW research forester) surveyed line officers gathered at the third National Forest Supervisors’ Conference. The officers ranked the “operational values” they believe the Forest Service rewards, followed by a ranking of the values that participants believe should be rewarded. Most rewarded, in practice, are (1) teamwork, (2) agency loyalty, (3) meeting targets, (4) professional competency, (5) hard work, and (6) promoting a good FS image. What should be most rewarded, the leaders say, are (1) care for ecosystems, (2) professional competency, (3) consensus building, (4) care for employee development, (5) responsiveness to local publics, and (6) concern for future generations.
These results suggest that line officers believe the Forest Service rewards loyalty to the organization, e.g., loyalty to the team, agency, and targets. Kennedy calls this “dog” loyalty: “Dog-loyalty is direct, unswerving, immediate loyalty to the master, that is, the boss or the agency.” Kennedy, J. and Thomas, J.W., “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty of Wildlife Biologists in Public Natural Resource/Environmental Agencies,” in Mangun, W.R. (ed), American fish and wildlife policy, the human dimension. In contrast, many of the values line officers want rewarded (care for ecosystems, consensus building, responsiveness to local publics and concern for future generations), exemplify “cat loyalty” – “a less master-oriented, broader, and more diverse loyalty to the household” – in other words, loyalty to the agency’s mission.
My first priority as Chief would be to work against the bureaucracy’s natural dog-loyal tendencies by pushing cat-loyal practices. Here’s a modest forest planning example.
Has anyone not used the web to find out how others rate a product, like a new car, book, or bicycle (after much research, my new racing machine is a Cannondale CAAD9)? So how about an on-line rating system for forest plans available to those implementing the plans (FS employees), those working on the national forest (contractors, special-use permittees, local governments), and everyone else (visitors)? Here are some rating questions (scale 1-5 with room for comments):
Does the forest plan help you do your job?
Is the plan easy to understand?
Does the plan tell you what you want to know?
A “dog loyal” organization might ask these questions, but would make sure that the answers are hard to find, hidden away in agency files. Cat-loyalists seek transparency because they want to improve their agency’s mission performance (“Caring for the land and serving people”), even at the risk of offending internal vested interests.
So what would you do as Chief?
Maps are planning’s most ubiquitous and useful tool. Maps put place in the center of the planning conversation. It’s no surprise that all of the place-based collaborative processes use maps as their exclusive planning tool. No linear programming optimizing models; no ecological forecasting models; in fact, no complex models at all are used in collaborative, place-based planning (in a future post I will discuss why complex models create more trouble than they are worth).
In the days before GIS, maps and transparent overlays were used to avoid placing clearcuts next to campgrounds. Conventional NFMA plans use maps to zone land, showing where uses are permitted or prohibited.
The proposed K.I.S.S. planning rule eliminates this discretionary zoning function from NFMA plans. Without zoning, what information would K.I.S.S. maps illustrate?
A map of the 3-year vegetation management and timber harvest program would be useful. This map would show the metes and bounds of lands slated for vegetation treatments. Using Google Earth as a base, the vegetation treatment map would show where the land to be treated is located in relation to towns, homes, or natural resource features and what the current vegetation looks like from a bird’s eye view. During the forest planning process, Google Earth could be used interactively with the public allowing anyone to build a kml file to recommend treatment sites to the planning team or illustrate why a proposed treatment is unwise.
Google Earth maps can display inventory information used in the planning process, such as the location of endangered species critical habitat. Planners and the public can use Google Earth to overlay vegetation management maps onto resource inventory maps to see the intersection of vegetation actions with the places and things they care about.
So what happens to zoning? NFMA does not require that forest plans zone national forests by use or prescription. Of course, where zones have been imposed by law, e.g., wilderness, the Forest Service must conform its management to the zone’s requirements. But there is no compelling reason for the Forest Service to zone uses in the NFMA planning process. People want to know what the Forest Service will do and where, on-the-ground, in the immediate future. Speculative zoning does not serve that purpose.
On May 6, Deputy regional forester Pena denied Crested Butte Ski Area’s appeal of GMUG forest supervisor Richmond’s decision rejecting the ski area’s proposal to expand downhill skiing onto Snodgrass Mountain. Pena notes correctly that NEPA is not triggered when a private entity proposes a project on the national forests; thus, Richmond’s decision denying the ski area’s expansion plan does not require an EIS.
That’s the simple part of Pena’s decision. Things get more complicated when Pena turns to NFMA. He is obviously troubled that the GMUG’s NFMA plan zones Snodgrass Mountain for downhill skiing. Crested Butte thinks this ski area zone creates a presumption that it can expand downhill skiing to the undeveloped Snodgrass Mountain. Pena appears to agree. His decision directs Richmond to either tell Crested Butte what an acceptable Snodgrass Mountain ski area expansion would look like or revise the forest plan to eliminate the ski zone on Snodgrass Mountain.
Under current NFMA rules, a forest plan revision (as distinct from an “amendment”) requires an EIS. Thus Pena is giving the ski area what it wants — an EIS — but through an NFMA backdoor instead of NEPA.
This illustrates an underlying problem of viewing NFMA plans as all-resource, comprehensive zoning documents. That’s not what Congress required or envisioned. Doing so creates perverse consequences, such as at Snodgrass Mountain, where NFMA zoning creates an EIS obligation not required by NEPA.
Two things.. First, Martin and I have been thinking about what happens after the third national roundtable next week…information about the rule process will fade as the rule writing team goes to work. Still, the folks contributing to this blog seem to have plenty to talk about…so perhaps we should be more conscious about expanding what people are interested in with regard to Forest Service policies and activities. Based on the past few weeks discussion, we are interested in place-based legislation, the land law review, the use of science in natural resource management, Forest Service management improvement and a variety of related topics.
Second, is that I’ve decided to take the FS logo and my official address off the blog. I think we need to be very clear on what is part of our public process and what is not – especially since our collaborative efforts are so extensive- the official blog, regional and national roundtables, and so on. People could be legitimately confused about what is official and what is not, as so many approaches are out there. When Martin and I started this blog, we didn’t even know that there would be an official blog, so the terrain was very different than today. I think the public involvement effort we (the FS) are doing is just an incredible piece of work, and I applaud all those folks who are working on it. Even if there were only a slight risk of distracting anyone from that effort, it would be too big a risk for me.
Of course, this will not change my commitment to the blog nor to enjoying and being enlightened by our discussions.
One more item.. we get into discussions on this blog in which we leave something interesting- like I am reviewing the testimony Martin suggested on the Tester Bill- but then we get pulled off by our other work and life commitments. I would like to call out consciously that the rhythms of this blog may have a short-term and a long-term component, and that is part of who we are.
A Canadian Whale? A Vancouver Canucks fan? Drink Labatt’s blue? Smoke du Maurier’s at a Tim Horton’s? Other clues….
I spent part of last week at a workshop focused on “Integrating and Applying Conservation Science for Transboundary Coastal Temperate Rainforests.” Basically a lot of intense time thinking about the Tongass in Southeast Alaska and the Mid-to-North Coast of British Columbia (including the Great Bear Rainforest, Haida Gwaii, etc.).
I was struck by how similar the discussions were to those here on the blog. People on both sides of the border are struggling with so many similar planning, management, conservation, and community issues. Lots of the same stuff, but in a much different governing context.
One of the most obvious themes of the workshop is the importance of boundaries in forest management and conservation. That this place is ecologically connected is beyond question. It is collectively the largest temperate rainforest in the world. The region also faces some similar threats, and not just those from the “timber wars” that have long characterized the region.
Similarities and connections notwithstanding, the region is dominated by boundaries. Consider just two. First, there is the obvious international boundary. So strong is this demarcation that is has impeded the sharing of information and makes it difficult to learn lessons from one another. The workshop was designed to start chipping away at this problem.
Another boundary is that between terrestrial and marine conservation. One of the things making the Tongass so different (and special) compared to other national forests is its marine interactions and context (an archipelago). Same goes for coastal/island BC. Take, for example, the fascinating relationship between salmon and forests (a compelling story about why we need more holistic, integrated planning: background on the “salmon forest project” and associated EquinoxSalmonArticle). Despite these interactions, approaches to protected areas most often focus on terrestrial reserves, and ignores the marine.
There are other boundaries as well, from disciplinary to professional that play out in sometimes baffling ways. Of course, a lot of this is old ground, and we don’t need to re-hash all the ecosystem management stuff of the past. But the situation does raise a couple interesting questions from a forest planning standpoint, including:
1) Does an “all-lands” approach (as articulated by the USFS in its planning process) necessitate “due consideration” of adjacent lands in Canada? (The NOI states that “plans could incorporate an “all lands” approach by considering the relationship between NFS lands and neighboring lands. The threats and opportunities facing our lands and natural resources do not stop at ownership boundaries.” 74 Fed. Reg. 67,169.
2) Are there examples of integrated protected lands/marine areas that are instructive from a wastershed/planning perspective? (The NOI states that “land management plans could emphasize maintenance and restoration of watershed health…”.
I thought some of our faithful readers and contributors might be interested in attending the Place-Based Forest Agreements & Laws Symposium, to be held in Missoula, Montana on June 8th and 9th.
I’ve teamed up with the National Forest Foundation to organize the event. We have invited representatives from the following initiatives to Missoula:
We’ve confirmed most speakers and will have things settled by the end of the week hopefully.
The plan is to learn more about these initiatives and have representatives answer questions posed by attendees and organizers (the latter written with feedback provided by USFS officials, interest group representatives, congressional staffers, and others). Plenary sessions will be followed by smaller, more focused breakout sessions where we’ll try to have more participation and open-discussion.
Here is the official invite with registration link:
The National Forest Foundation and the Bolle Center for People and Forests at the University of Montana invite you to join us in Missoula on June 8 and 9, 2010 for the Place-Based Forest Agreements & Laws Symposium. We look forward to an engaging discussion around the challenges, strategies, solutions-development and achievements of landscape-scale stewardship initiatives on National Forest lands.
Throughout the country, divergent interests are collaborating about how they would like particular forests to be managed. Many of these proposals include provisions related to forest restoration, economic development, wilderness designation, and funding mechanisms, among others. Approaches include state-level principles, memorandums of agreement regarding how collaborative groups and federal agencies work together, landscape assessments that lead to on-the-ground work, and place-based legislation. Each initiative is different in significant ways, but all are searching for more durable, bottom-up, and pro-active solutions to national forest management.
With so much happening so quickly we believe is the time to bring people together in a symposium to assess the big picture and help identify common problems and possible solutions. We invite you to join us for a two-day event focused on place-based, landscape approaches to forest stewardship. In addition, we encourage you to forward this invitation to others who you think might be interested in participating.
Registration for the symposium is $100.00. We are planning an event that mixes plenary sessions with break outs to explore specific issues in more depth. We plan to summarize the discussions and ideas in a synthesis paper following the event.
For further information and to register, please go to http://nff.wildapricot.org. I recommend you bookmark this site for future reference, as we will continue to update the site with further information. We will soon be posting background documents about each of the landscape-scale stewardship initiatives that will be presenting at the Symposium.
Thank you, and we hope to see you in Missoula in June!
EPA is sponsoring a video contest to “explain rulemaking and win $2,500.” EPA says that “government regulations help set the price of the coffee you drink, the voltage of electricity your alarm clock uses, and the types of programming allowed on the morning news.”
Get your video uploaded to YouTube by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Monday, May 17, 2010. Better avoid the type of video the government bars from your morning news.