Is This True? Is Leaving Things Alone Always Best For Climate? Statements Around the 30 x 30 Initiative

by
On the trail to Laurel Falls in Great Smoky Mountains National Park in July 2019/NPS

Jon posted this quote from one person’s opinion about the George Washington National Forest and 30 x30. But I have seen this same concept stated in other places that I can’t locate right now.

By protection, I mean minimizing human activity in order to allow for “as natural a state as possible”. This approach is termed proforestation, letting standing forests grow and develop in complexity to their natural old growth state; such restoration is also the most effective way to counter climate change.

I think it’s what was behind many of the 20th century federal lands debates (the LTA concept-leaving things alone, except for preferred forms of recreation, is best for the environment). Still, given the narrative that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the primary environmental problem of the day (crisis), reasonable people have to wonder whether this “LTA is best” remains a true statement. You’ll notice that in the Biden Admin press release on 30×30, it mentions the extinction crisis but doesn’t state that “protecting” areas (to be defined by DOI?) will help with climate change.

So it will be interesting to see how this plays out in various news stories, op-eds and so on. But we can think of various situations in which LTA does not seem to be the best for action on reducing GHGs.

1. Build-out of infrastructure for solar and wind, with accompanying transmission; also pipelines for carbon capture.

2. Leaving fires alone can lead to deforestation and less carbon being soaked up, see Hayman Fire for example.  It’s possible that planting is OK in “protected” areas, but if you’re going for Wilderness, believe it or not, I recall at one time folks said you couldn’t plant disease-resistant whitebark pine in Wilderness because it was unnatural. Maybe it’s the breeding (so they survive) and not the planting that makes it unnatural? Would fuel treatments be OK in these protected areas, or just prescribed burning, or ??  Or maybe suppression shouldn’t occur either.   So many questions and complexities, that are not ultimately not scientific in nature.- because protection is an abstraction, and abstractions are usually defined by … those with privilege.

3. No drilling or mining of fossil fuels will likely lead to increased development on private lands and/or more imports (that’s what decreasing supply without changing demand has historically done.  Thank you economists!). Now, logically, transporting imports from another country may lead to more use of fossil fuels in the act of transporting.

Can you think of other situations in which “leaving things alone except for currently preferred forms of recreation” is not best for climate?

Sidepoint: it is conceivable that any recreation form that requires gas-powered or electricity sourced from fossil fuel energy (a high proportion of most electric grids nowadays), is also not good for the climate. However, I don’t see anyone proposing a regulation that all skiers at FS permitted ski areas arrive only by certified carbon-free vehicles.

My other point about 30×30 is that if we can’t meet our own energy and minerals needs from our own land because we are “protecting” it.. are we merely exporting the impacts on biodiversity to somewhere else, whose biodiversity is just as desirable (or possibly more, for whatever reasons that specialists in the various kinds of biodiversity can think up) as our own?

And of course, there are arguments that for social justice toward our own working classes that we would not want to export jobs. Then there’s the same old forest products argument that asks if the other country’s labor and environmental protections are as good as ours? But we still import wood from Canada, a friendly and benign ally with similar rules.  To say it gently,  our relations with countries such as China, Russia, the Saudis and so on are more geopolitically complex. Not to speak of the concept of balance of trade being a thing worthy of consideration somewhere in all this.

The logical thing to do IMHO seem to be to start with the new infrastructure, and then see what’s left to put into protection. Otherwise, it seems a bit disorganized – especially for solutions to the #1 problem and crisis in the world, that we need to act on urgently.  On the other hand, various scientists and folks like the TNC say that some places are more worth protecting that others. Hopefully, all these concerns will line up- but right now there doesn’t appear to be a mechanism to do that. Or maybe the Biden Admin will be more welcoming of nuclear because more land could be “protected?” Will be interesting to watch.

Another thought, if the US becomes a “park” country, at the expense of other countries becoming “industrial zone” countries, is that a good thing? For whom? What is the net impact on the environment?

Anyway, it seems to me that some people see 30 x 30 as just another opportunity to restate “LTA is best,” with “besides, it’s the best thing for climate” perhaps, as a rhetorical flourish more than a statement of reality.

Covid Recreation and Forest Service Impacts: Interview with Scott Fitzwilliams

by
In 2020, cars lined the road to Brainard Lake in Boulder County, CO, on the Arapaho-Roosevelt NF. Photo by the FS

This story is from January in the Colorado Springs Gazette, a Seth Boster piece on the impacts of Covid recreation. It features an interview with Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor of the White River National Forest. If you have a similar story in your local media, please share the link in the comments. There’s also some good photos. Apparently there has also been an increase in people moving to Colorado due to Covid, which adds another crowding factor. What I like about this issue is that there are no “bad groups” to stereotype and moralize about, and there’s no partisan angle. The only bad folks are individual recreationists who.. behave badly.

It’s well worth reading in its entirety, and quotes a number of people, but I just excerpted the part on “management scenarios.”

Which begs the question: Could crowd control strategies tried in the summer of COVID-19 be here to stay?

At the Hessie trailhead, for example, the ranger district partnered with sheriff’s deputies. “They were turning people around by the hundreds on busy weekends after parking was full,” Armstrong says.

North of there, at Brainard Lake, a timed entry system was tried. Arapaho National Forest’s most famous destination, Mount Evans Scenic Byway, remained closed, as public health guidelines made opening tricky, Armstrong says. “We’re beginning to have conversations on what to do next year.”

Such conversations are ongoing well beyond that summit.

Reservations continue to be enforced at the Manitou Incline, the iconic trail in Manitou Springs that local leaders closed in March under an emergency order. Similarly, in an announced effort to prevent the coronavirus spread, Rocky Mountain National Park enacted a booking system over the summer that some onlookers see as the future for other overrun national parks in the West.

Another reservation system was born this summer at another Colorado natural treasure: the Maroon Bells. Beyond that scenic area, in the Maroon-Snowmass Wilderness, reservations and permits could soon be required, says Fitzwilliams, who oversaw reservations rolled out in 2019 for Hanging Lake near Glenwood Springs.

And he expects more talks regarding more “management scenarios” at other sites under siege, mentioning spots near Vail and Summit County in particular. Above Breckenridge, at the base of Quandary Peak, 14,000-foot summit fever once again led to overflow on the adjacent highway, the lines of cars on either side of the road and jammed parking lot causing hazards for emergency vehicles.

“If things keep growing the way they are, it’s inevitable that some of these areas are going to have to have some management scenarios, either permits or reservations or some sort of those types of tools,” Fitzwilliams says.

“It’s just the way it is. The old days aren’t here anymore.”

In the old days, there were more staff and resources, Fitzwilliams says. Since he started at White River National Forest 11 years ago, the budget he oversees has plunged 45%, he says. The busiest national forest serves as a microcosm for broader cuts to the U.S. Forest Service over recent years.

“We’re hitting a point where we can’t keep going down while the use (of lands) and output keeps going up,” Fitzwilliams says.

Oregon Statewide Forest Practice Negotiation Process

by
OFRI Oregon Forest Ownership Map.

It’s always interesting to compare how California, Oregon and Washington deal with forest issues. A new process in Oregon deals with developing a Habitat Conservation Plan for private forests by bringing all parties into a collaborative discussion with mediation, and then ultimately passing a bill in the State Legislature. It’s also interesting that as reported “by signing off on the memorandum, the parties agreed to stand down from pursuing legal challenges to the issues while the negotiation process is still ongoing.” But I guess that both sides have the opportunity to litigate afterwards? It will be interesting to watch how all this plays out.

Here’s one version of the story from the Well News, which is an interesting news outlet in its own right.

— Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced the first of a series of negotiations Wednesday in a collaborative effort between conservation leaders, fishing organizations and forestry representatives to adapt statewide forest practices.

Brown brokered an agreement between the conservation groups and timber products entities in February 2020 to forgo a divisive ballot initiative battle in favor of “collaboratively developed changes to forest practices,” instituted through legislative efforts, according to a release from the governor’s office. These efforts are aimed at creating new protections for sensitive aquatic species on over 10 million acres of private forestland in Oregon without impairing the state’s timber industry.

“In the past year––despite the disruptions of a global pandemic and historic wildfire devastation which made face-to-face meetings very difficult––this group has made steady progress in establishing common ground,” Brown said in a written statement. “Together, we can build a future for Oregon with healthy forests, fish, and wildlife and economic growth for our forest industry and rural communities at the same time.”

The negotiations between the stakeholders could be finalized in a statewide “Habitat Conservation Plan” from federal agencies for threatened and endangered species. State lawmakers hope the cooperatively developed plan will lead to long-term conservation benefits for the state’s wildlife while establishing greater regulatory certainty for landowners.

The state’s strategy for addressing the concerns and priorities of the involved parties was outlined in a memorandum which was mediated and released by the governor’s office. In the memorandum, the parties agreed they have incentive to reach a compromise on the “historically difficult issues” and that “any compromise must be built on mutual trust and respect.”

“Oregon’s forests are a precious resource that provide extraordinary beauty and recreational opportunities and a source of good, year-round employment and economic opportunity for small, family-owned businesses,” Heath Curtiss of Hampton Lumber said in a written statement. “Our goal is to ensure a vibrant and sustainable Oregon forest products industry, now and into the future, while avoiding the tragic community losses we saw in rural Oregon when federal forest harvest plummeted.”

Curtiss continued, “It will be delicate work, but if we focus on good science, specific problem statements, and the least burdensome measures to help remedy those problems, we’ll get there. It will require compromise on all sides, and a recognition that forestry is only one piece of the puzzle.”

Consequently, the parties hope to come to an agreement that ensures greater business certainty for forest landowners and industries and greater environmental certainty for the protection of threatened and endangered species and “aquatic resources,” according to the memorandum.

Simply put, the conservation entities want advanced protections for drinking water and wildlife and the business entities do not want these changes to compromise the state’s manufacturing infrastructure.

Further, the memorandum outlines a new process for resolving subsequent conflicts. By signing off on the memorandum, the parties agreed to stand down from pursuing legal challenges to the issues while the negotiation process is still ongoing.

Key Abstractions in Forest Management and Conservation: 1. Sustainability and Sustainable Forest Management.

by

Jon and I have been discussing whether “ecological integrity” and  “resilience” are in fact, the same thing.   I think it makes sense, though, to start from the beginning and go through all the abstractions we’ve used for the past 40 years or so, looking at (1) what actors defined and promoted them, (2) the place of humans in the abstractions, including indigenous and local people, 3) how they handle climate mitigation and adaptation, and 4) how or if the concepts have a link to management practices on the ground.  Two caveats, though, this is mostly from my own memory supplemented with links, so other knowledge, ideas and perspectives (and links!) are welcome.

The first to examine is “sustainability.” This was seen to be the intersection of social, economic and ecological sustainability.  Who defined it: I think the international development community but then the forest community ran with it.  It’s particularly interesting as a result of the Montreal process towards sustainable forest management, the group developed criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. Here they are:

You’ll note that two additional abstractions- biodiversity and forest ecosystem health- are included in the C&I, also global carbon cycles, even though they came out in 1995.

Then Canada took those and developed its own forest certification standard.  So if you wanted to track this concept, you could go all the way from the abstract idea of sustainability to what things forest managers can and can’t do, and what they should be concerned about.

From the CSA Website:

Developed for Canada CSA Z809 is written specifically for Canada and its publicly-owned forests. The standard was built on top of strong legislative frameworks that govern forestry, follows the CCFM Framework for Sustainable Forest Management, and sets the benchmark for community involvement.

An Active Community Voice in Forest Management
Local advisory committees are involved in identifying values, objectives, indicators and targets for criteria and indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. They also participate in annual
reviews of performance against targets, and continual improvement discussions.
Current, Relevant and Evolving
Helps organizations meet for performance goals and allows for continual improvement through a management system of planning, implementing, checking, corrective actions and management
reviews.
Transparency
Outlines how certain information must be made publicly available, such as CSA Sustainable Forest Management plans, annual reports on progress against those plans; and results of independent
certification and surveillance audit reports.
Independent
The standard was developed in an independent and transparent process.
Labels for Forest Products with Integrity
The CSA Group Forest Certification Program allows the use of PEFC Chain of Custody labels that demonstrate compliance with the a wood product has been sourced standard and assurance that
responsibly & legally.

If you note, this sounds a bit like national forest planning in the US.

So it appears to me that sustainable forest management was discussed and debated by the usual suspects in the forest policy sector.  At least in Canada, it reaches from concept to the ground, including the use of local advisory committees, defined criteria and indicators, transparency and third party certification.  They updated the standard in 2016 and

Aboriginal Relations
A stronger, standalone section specific to Aboriginal people has been created which highlights the understanding of Aboriginal title and rights, the importance of building good relationships, being flexible in ways of involving Aboriginal communities in forest management planning, and including efforts to identify and resolve disagreement.

Now, there’s another very large body of literature around forest certification itself, which I can’t do justice here.

What about climate? Interest in climate has grown since 1995. In a brief review, I haven’t been able to trace carbon and adaptation concerns into specific current standards, but I’m sure that issues like carbon, reforestation, and adaptation are included.

The California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan of 2021- Forest Service Contributions

by

Are we headed for an abstraction knock-down with the 2012 Planning Rule requiring managing National Forests for “ecological integrity” and states like California promoting “resilience”? I bolded the FS goals below. Note that with regard to PB, CALFIRE, among other things,  will “increase support for workforce development and training programs, and evaluate options to address liability issues for private landowners seeking to conduct prescribed burns for the private insurance market.” I just posted the summary below, so there may be other FS contributions in the main document.

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

In January the State of California came out with:

The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan is designed to strategically accelerate efforts to:
» Restore the health and resilience of California forests, grasslands and natural places;
» Improve the fire safety of our communities; and
» Sustain the economic vitality of rural forested areas.

To meet these goals, the following will need to be achieved:
Scale-up forest management to meet the state and federal 1 million-acre annual restoration target by 2025.
» The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and other state entities will expand its fuels management crews, grant programs, and partnerships to scale up fuel treatments to 500,000 acres annually by 2025;
» California state agencies will lead by example by expanding forest management on state-owned lands to improve resilience against wildfires and other impacts of climate change; and
» The USFS will double its current forest treatment levels from 250,000 acres to 500,000 acres annually by 2025.

Significantly expand the use of prescribed fire across the state:
» CAL FIRE will expand its fuels reduction and prescribed fire programs to treat up to 100,000 acres by 2025, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) and other state agencies will also increase the use of prescribed fire on high-risk state lands;
» The USFS, in partnership with CAL FIRE, tribal governments, and other agencies will seek to establish a Prescribed Fire Training Center to provide training opportunities for prescribed burn practitioners and focus training efforts on western ecosystems;
» CAL FIRE will also establish a new tribal grants program, increase support for workforce development and training programs, and evaluate options to address liability issues for private landowners seeking to conduct prescribed burns.” for the private insurance market;
» The USFS will significantly expand its prescribed fire program to attain its 500,000-acre target for forest treatments by 2025.

Reforest areas burned by catastrophic fire:
» The USFS will develop a restoration strategy for wildfire impacted federal lands and CAL FIRE will partner with the California Office 6 January 2021 of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and other federal, state, and local agencies to develop a coordinated strategy to prioritize and rehabilitate burned areas and affected communities. These ecologically-based strategies will focus on silvicultural practices that increase carbon storage, protect biodiversity, and build climate resilience.

Support communities, neighborhoods, and residents in increasing their resilience to wildfire:
» CAL FIRE will significantly expand its defensible space and home hardening programs and launch a new program building upon the Governor’s 35 Emergency Fuel Break Projects by developing a list of 500 high priority fuel breaks across the state. This list will be continuously updated.                                    
» The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) will expand its Regional Forest and Fire Capacity (RFFC) Program to all high-risk areas throughout the state and increase local and regional governments’ capacity to build and maintain a pipeline of forest health and fire prevention projects.

Develop a comprehensive program to assist private forest landowners, who own more than 40 percent of the state’s forested lands:
» CAL FIRE will coordinate the implementation of several grants and technical assistance programs for private landowners through a unified Wildfire Resilience and Forestry Assistance Program.

Create economic opportunities for the use of forest materials that store carbon, reduce emissions, and contribute to sustainable local economies.
» The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is leading the development of a comprehensive framework to expand the wood products market in California and will partner with CAL FIRE, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GoBiz), the USFS, and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (iBank) to draft a market development roadmap and catalyze private investment into this sector.

Improve and align forest management regulations:
» The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF) is leading the expansion of a new online permitting tool and permit synchronization initiative to provide a one-stop shop for permits from several agencies and will use the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP) to streamline project planning and environmental review.

Spur innovation and better measure progress:
» CAL FIRE and the USFS, in coordination with the USDA California Climate Hub, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and other agencies, will seek to establish a Forest Data Hub to coordinate and integrate federal, state, and local reporting on forest management and carbon accounting programs, and serve as a clearinghouse for new and emerging technologies and data platforms.
This strategy will also be integrated into the state’s efforts to combat climate change through the following actions:
1.   Scale-up forest thinning and prescribed fire efforts to reduce long-term greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution from large and catastrophic wildfires;
2.  Integrate science-based climate adaptation and resiliency strategies into the emerging state-wide network of regional forest and community fire resilience plans;
3. Drive forest management, conservation, reforestation and wood utilization strategies that stabilize and increase the carbon stored in forests while preserving biodiversity and revitalizing rural communities;
4. Improve electricity grid resilience; and
5. Promote sustainable land use.

The Path to Healthy Headwater Forests: PPIC Webinar Tomorrow!

by

The webinar is from 11-12 Pacific and features a presentation of their (PPIC is the Public Policy Institute of California) research paper, a panel discussion, and questions and answers. Here’s the link to the webinar information and registration. The study (found here) has some interesting charts and graphs. I picked a few to highlight below. There’s an interesting interactive map, but I couldn’t copy it here.

Here are their findings:

Last summer, California and the US Forest Service (USFS) jointly agreed to significantly increase two important management approaches—mechanical thinning and prescribed fire—over the next five years. In January, the Forest Management Task Force released California’s first action plan for forest health. State funding for improving forest health has increased since 2019, and the governor’s 2021‒22 budget proposes to continue this trend.

As policymakers and forest managers take steps to accelerate the pace, understanding the scale and scope of recent management efforts can provide useful guidance. Yet until now there hasn’t been a comprehensive picture of how private, state, and federal entities have managed forests. To fill this gap, we did a basic accounting of management efforts in mixed-conifer forests in the Sierra‒Cascade region over the past decade.

Here are four takeaways:

*Forest management is not scaling fast enough to meet forest health objectives. Experts suggest that reducing the spread of severe wildfires requires strategically treating and maintaining approximately 20‒30% of forests on the landscape. Forest managers have treated around 16% of the region’s mixed-conifer forests over the past decade. Management levels vary across the region, with only 8 of the 24 watersheds meeting or exceeding this target (Figure 1c). The pace has been considerably faster on lands owned by the private sector and non-federal agencies (28%) than on federally owned lands (11%).

*Timber harvest has been the main management approach. Though its primary purpose is to harvest logs, some timber harvest techniques also reduce wildfire risk and improve resilience to drought and pests. More than two-thirds of the 912,000 acres managed over the past decade used timber harvesting (Figure 2). The practice was more prevalent in northern watersheds, where private forest ownership is more common. The costs and benefits of different management approaches—timber harvest, mechanical thinning, and prescribed burning—should be at the center of discussions about which to use where.

*Management approaches vary based on ownership. Nearly 90% of acres managed on private forests were harvested (Figure 3). By contrast, federal forests had a more diversified management portfolio, and timber harvest accounts for less than half of managed acres on these lands. In absolute terms, USFS carried out three times more mechanical and prescribed burning treatments compared to private and other public landowners in the region.

*The pace of management has been flat. Although the share of non-timber management has increased, the overall pace of management has remained relatively stable over the past decade—at around 90,000 acres annually (Figure 4). One likely explanation: public funding sources that support management have also been stagnant over this period. The pace should pick up once new state funds for forests reach the ground.

As forest managers and policymakers chart a course to improve forest health, improving our overall understanding of past management activities is essential. Our analysis helps provide a clearer picture of forest management accomplishments and gaps—which can in turn help set priorities for allocating scarce management resources. Yet the technical challenge of even basic accounting of these activities remains immense. Data sets that make accounting possible have different levels of quality and collection standards. Improving the accuracy, completeness, and comparability of data collected on forest management across the headwater region will be critical for evaluating progress toward meeting goals for forest health.

It’s kind of interesting to me that the data we need doesn’t seem to exist, and yet… so much funding seems to be going to various satellite imaging efforts. Maybe it’s time for the western FIA’s to start a Fire-Related Forest Vegetation data effort.. they already have the history of working with stakeholders, States and Tribes and dealing with privacy issues. A bipartisan unity-building effort? After all, everyone likes good data!

This GOP congressman wants to remove 4 dams to save Idaho’s salmon.

by

 

THE FOUR DAMS THAT COULD BE REMOVED

These four dams on the Lower Snake River could be removed under a proposal being championed by U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho. Click or touch the icons to see more info on each dam and t.

Map: NATHANIEL LEVINE  | Sources: U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Rocky Barker has an extensive and super interesting story about US Rep Mike Simpson’s approach for dam removal of some dams on the Lower Snake River.

Numerous parts of interest to TSW readers. It’s interesting that very large sums of money from the feds to all concerns seem to be the key to settling this conflict. I wonder whether that concept is more broadly applicable?

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson of East Idaho released the plan after asking more than 300 groups what they would need if the dams came out.

Power marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration from the four controversial dams would be replaced. Shippers and farmers would get funds for alternatives to the barge shipping on the Snake and compensation for closed barge facilities. Lewiston in Idaho and the Tri-Cities in Washington would get billions for economic development.

Farmers across the Pacific Northwest, including those in Idaho’s Magic Valley, would get billions of dollars in incentives for water-quality projects. Farmers in Washington that now pump out of the reservoirs behind the Snake dams would get millions in compensation that they could use for altering their diversions.

The plan would be funded by a federal infrastructure bill.

“If we give the farmers, bargers, ports, the BPA and communities the necessary resources, each sector can develop a certainty and security putting the Northwest and Idaho salmon on a path to sustained viability,” Simpson said in a video news release released Saturday night.

Simpson says his “concept” would ban litigation over the four Columbia River dams for 35 years and increase salmon funding for states and tribes, which would co-manage salmon restoration.

The newly free-flowing river would be protected in a proposed Lower Snake River National Recreation Area.

Two elements of interest..restricting litigation..

Environmental groups would have to give up the tool that has given them the most leverage to force the region to try to save salmon: lawsuits alleging violations of federal environmental-protection laws. The groups are not happy about that, but are willing to give it a try.

“The dams aren’t going to come out without an agreement on certainty,” said David Moryc, associate director at American Rivers, a national group pushing for river restoration. “We’re committed to providing that kind of certainty to get this thing done.”

The details of the litigation moratorium will be critical, said Kurt Miller, executive director of Northwest River Partners, which represents electric utilities, shippers and others who have defended the dams. The moratorium would have to include not only the Endangered Species Act but also the Clean Water Act.

Overall, Miller said Simpson has listened to people’s concerns and recognized the value of the four dams.

“It’s a serious plan at a unique time and it deserves to be vetted and heard,” Miller said in an interview.

And how will the power be replaced?

The fund would include $10 billion to replace the power generated by the four dams. Simpson said that could include a mix of solar, wind, nuclear, batteries and managed demand.

BPA would get an additional $4 billion to replace the energy lost from increased spilling of water over the remaining four dams on the Columbia. Spilling water over the dams, away from the power turbines, improves salmon migration.

Another $2 billion would go into grid upgrades that would make the region’s aging transmission system more resilient and efficient.

Simpson’s plan would also raise the cap for BPA to borrow from the federal treasury.

Maybe it’s easier for them to switch over to new power sources because BPA can just built the new facilities themselves (?).

And the politics

Simpson said a bill crafted by the bipartisan Pacific Northwest congressional delegation and the governors of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana could be incorporated into an infrastructure package proposed by President Joe Biden this year, when the delegation has the most clout because of its tenure and committee assignments.

It would be kind of nice to see federal megabucks being spent outside of California and Florida, and of course, also great to get the salmon back.

Western Governors’ Association Survey for Working Lands Working Communities Initiative

by


Seems like TSW folks might be interested in this..

The Western Governors’ Association in July will launch Working Lands, Working Communities, the central policy initiative of incoming WGA Chair, Idaho Gov. Brad Little.

The Initiative will examine the interdependent relationships between western communities and state and federal land /resource management entities, and the role that local communities play in successful land planning and management processes.

As part of this Initiative, WGA will convene stakeholders and policymakers to discuss emerging issues, share best practices and success stories, and provide a forum for the development of bipartisan policy solutions.

WGA has developed this survey to help design the Initiative by identifying: (1) priority issues for gubernatorial leadership; (2) best practices for improving cross-boundary resource management in the West; (3) federal policy issues for potential WGA advocacy; and (4) individuals or organizations interested in participating in workshops and other opportunities for engagement.

Survey Instructions
Responses are requested by March 5 but will be accepted after that date. You do not need to answer every question to submit your survey. You may answer “Not Applicable” or leave the response blank. Recognizing that natural resource issues vary widely across western states, please indicate whether answers are specific to a certain resource issue. If you have additional information or any questions regarding this Initiative, please contact Bill Whitacre, WGA Senior Policy Advisor ([email protected]).

Please Note: Incomplete surveys cannot be saved and finished later. We recommend that you read all the questions before you begin entering answers. The survey contains two questions for each topic of land management and planning, cross-boundary collaboration, forest and rangeland management, and rural development.

Here’s the link.

Anatomy of a Timber Sale Lawsuit

by

Folks, as some of you know, I’m editor of The Forestry Source, the newspaper of the Society of American Foresters. I’m thinking about writing an in-depth article with a title similar to the subject line of this post: “Anatomy of a Timber Sale Lawsuit.” I’d look at one specific project from inception on, and get input from a variety of sources and perspectives. I’d strive to be evenhanded, thinking that a look a sale that was litigated and why, and the lessons learned, would be enlightening not only to Forestry Source readers, but to the denizens of The Smokey Wire.

Two questions, for now:

  1. Is this a crazy idea?
  2. What project would make for a good case study?

FWIW, my time with the Society of American Foresters is short. I recently learned that SAF will not renew my contract as editor — after 14+ years. The June edition will be my last. The official reasoning is that SAF wants to “shift to a more financially sustainable model.” I’ll need to shift to a more financially sustainable model, too. Anyhow, I’d like to pursue this story idea while I can.

Or would some other outlet be better?

— Steve

Science Friday: The Sierra Club, Science and Politics: Wolves in Colorado and Elk Feedgrounds in Wyoming

by
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Get-Involved/elk-feedgrounds

As some may have been following, we had an initiative in Colorado to reintroduce wolves. It was voted in; the vote was fairly close and mostly urban counties voted for wolves to be reintroduced on the Western Slope. Here’s the process, but the decision was made by initiative and the hearings and input are about “how” and not “if”. And Governor Polis recently challenged the commission to get the wolves here ahead of the schedule voted on in the initiative.

“I think next year is that sweet spot where you have plenty of time, you get a plan out this fall, you socialize it, we’ll be able to do in-person meetings this fall, the COVID thing will be out so you’ll be able to do listening sessions, there will be comments on the plan, it will be refined, amended probably early the following year,” Polis said. “We can get it done. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has risen to this challenge time and time again.”

Proposition 114 directs the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to:

Develop a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves in Colorado by December 31, 2023, on designated lands west of the Continental Divide;
Hold statewide hearings about scientific, economic, and social considerations;
Periodically obtain public input to update the plan; and
Use state funds to assist livestock owners in preventing conflicts with gray wolves and pay fair compensation for livestock losses.

According to RMEF (which I grant, is not an unbiased source, “CPW addressed wolf introduction in 1982, 1989, 2004 & 2016 and opposed an introduction each time.”). Note for those not following this: wolves are coming into Colorado on their own. In this case, the Sierra Club thought using an initiative process when the CPW (wildlife experts or not?) was against it was OK.

At the time, Greg Walcher, former director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources wrote in an op-ed:

Savor the irony of the Sierra Club’s website boasting, “For the first time, Coloradans – not politicians, not bureaucrats – We, The People, may decide whether to reintroduce gray wolves to Colorado.”

In other words, one of the harshest groups that insists politics has no place in wildlife management, now dismisses wildlife professionals as nothing more than “bureaucrats,” whose flawed judgment must be overruled by the political process. Now, who is declaring war on scientists?

BUT in Wyoming, Angus Thuermer of WyoFile has an interesting story today on wildlife feedgrounds and a new legislative initiative.

The bill establishes a transparent process for what would be a high-impact decision affecting more than just wildlife, said lead sponsor and cattleman Rep. Albert Sommers (R-Pinedale). “I want to make sure this is a discussion with all agencies that are involved,” he said

“Let’s call it a multi-species decision,” Sommers said, noting that feedground closures would impact stockgrowers. “That’s not just a Game and Fish issue.”

Wyoming’s Sierra Club chapter director called the measure “a pretty terrible idea.”

The bill is “a classic case of legislators trying to micromanage in areas where they have no expertise,” said Connie Wilbert, Wyoming chapter director of the group. “They’re not wildlife experts, they’re not wildlife disease experts — nor is the governor.”

Note that in this case, the decision making process will be open with affected parties weighing in.. arguably more democratic with more opportunities for the relevant sciences to be brought to bear, than a non-open initiative process.

Sidestepping science?
Any recommendation to close a feedground today would likely find its way to the governor’s desk in any case, Sommers said. The bill creates a process for “all to be heard” before “the big dog decision-maker makes the call,” he said.

“I think it rises to the level of having a more thorough process,” Sommers said of elk feedground closures. “It just increases public participation” and provides “a clear decision-making tree.”

For Wilbert, the measure sidesteps science.

“The Legislature doesn’t like the information they’re getting from the scientists and wildlife experts,” she said, “and they think they can do a better job. They’re politicizing an issue that shouldn’t be politicized.”

CWD has arrived in a feedground herd and urgent action is necessary, she said.

“I’m really disappointed in this approach,” she said. “We should leave wildlife management to wildlife management experts and it should be based on the best available science.”

I’d argue that the “best available science” can’t be known without an open process, without different disciplines (including social sciences) weighing in, and without practitioner,Tribal and local on-the-ground knowledge also being taken into consideration.