SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah Gov. Gary Herbert is planning to ask the U.S. Department of Agriculture for permission to thin forests, clear out dead trees and do controlled burnings on protected areas that account for nearly half of national forest lands in the state.
The Republican governor is seeking to adjust how the U.S. Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule is applied in the state to allow for better state influence over national forests following a particularly brutal wildfire season, The Salt Lake Tribune reported this week.
The rule protects listed national forest lands that do not have roads from some activities that would require new roads. The rule covers more than 6,500 square miles (16,800 square kilometers) of forest lands in Utah.
The state’s effort is intended to give forest managers the flexibility they need for projects to make forests more resilient and protect watersheds, air quality and wildlife habitat, Herbert spokesman Paul Edwards said.
I asked Jim to give us his thoughts as an experienced Forest Service line officer on advice for new employees from non-FS backgrounds. It gave me a great deal to think about (the opaque, complex and dynamic levels of perceived legitimacy within the Forest Service) and I hope it generates discussion and some more helpful advice to these individuals, as well as discussions on hospitality to those new folks from current employees.
I. What’s Happening?
With regard to the growing phenomenon of FS hiring leaders with little or no FS experience (DoD e.g.,), or more specifically, natural resource experience… Why? A couple thoughts:
1) significant attrition with large exodus of retirees has opened many senior positions, 2) FS is still viewed as an attractive agency with a great mission, 3) FS may be waking to the idea that “outsiders” might actually be good (best?) hires, 4) veteran’s preference, of course.
Prominent examples would be Chief Vickie Christiansen, with a background as AZ and WA State Forester, and Jim Hubbard, former CO State Forester, who joined FS as S&PF Deputy Chief, and is now USDA Undersecretary.
II. Experience
Sour grapes? These are mine… While serving as Deputy Chief for National Forests I had the privilege to work with Chris Wood, Chief Dombeck’s policy advisor (now Pres/CEO of Trout Unlimited) and Hilda Diaz-Soltero, then Associate Chief; both substantial people. Chris and Hilda brought a raw energy and passion unmatched by most career leaders, along with some notions that seriously challenged agency dogma (good for them). Chris and Hilda both got the cold shoulder. Rather than welcoming each with open arms and doing everything to help them succeed, I observed “antibody” behaviors that sought to wall them off and minimize their impact — some overt, most subtle. I felt embarrassed at times. I hope the FS is doing better at creating an exemplary workplace for all (in light of persistent sexual harassment and misconduct), but ESPECIALLY for newcomers. Would anybody feel good about arriving on a new job eager to do their best, only to be shunned or marginalized? That would be deplorable. Yet, I experienced this even as a career professional.
III. Advice to Newcomers
Here’s my sober counsel to newcomers, especially those selected for leadership positions:
* Rejoice! You got the job you applied for, which could well be the best job you’ve ever had. The land you are responsible for bristles with opportunity, challenge, and beauty. Most people you serve, in your office and nearby communities, love this land as much as you and really want you to succeed. Ask for their help and listen to their values.
* Create your own focus group. Solicit suggestions for 12 knowledgeable, reasonable citizens and invite them to a monthly ad hoc get together. Meet for a year and ask their help in clarifying issues and defining success.
*Quickly get acquainted with your land base and resource issues. Invite key agency staff and citizens out for a one-on-one day in the woods. Listen. Ask questions. Learn!!
*The agency likely has notable adversaries. Go to them. Listen. Build bridges where possible.
*You will encounter feelings of loneliness and being “other”. Don’t ignore this, it’s real. But don’t be overwhelmed. Cultivate relationships with folks with whom you can bare your soul. A good source are peers, other leaders you trust to give you good honest counsel.
I’m hoping other readers will have good suggestions or comments. I’d like to see the FS give each new employee. especially leaders, a “1-pager” of distilled wisdom in their starter kit.
Every year is an opportunity to point out different things about the “Best Places to Work” effort for government agencies. This year it’s kind of handy because they have published the ranks and changes since 2003 and across categories. Remember they are ranks, not absolute values, so other agencies going down can have just as much influence as the agencies we’re interested in going up. Here’s the Forest Service:
Forest Service
Questions: (1) Do these differences actually mean anything (e.g. for 2007 66.4 was above median and in 2016 66.6 was below the median)?. It might be more useful to see the actual scores if the same questions were being asked through time. Here are some other graphs
(2) it looks like scores have been climbing since 2013 based on the index score trend graph. What happened in 2013? Does it mean anything?
(3) They also have a graph of workforce size, which appears to have taken a big hit between 2010 and 2011 (4K ish employees). Is that real?
For comparison, here is BLM. The two agencies appear to have identical rank and index in 2017 (252 and 60.1). FS went up 2.5 and BLM 4.3.
BLM #252 Index 60.1
Here is the National Park Service:National Park Service #285 score 57
I don’t know who exactly qualifies as senior leadership in the survey, but all three agencies were extremely close in their rankings on this. It also looks like.
It looks like all three agencies had a downward trend in total ranks starting in 2012. Their workforces also took a relatively big hit between 2010 and 2011. Are these perhaps related?
Perhaps others have more ideas and information on these observations.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead urged attendees to “make a difference” on land management and invasive species policy at the WGA Working Lands Roundtable.
Remember invasive species? They were one of the Four Threats that Chief Bosworth outlined in (2006?) (a) fire and fuels, (b) invasive species, (c) loss of open space, and (d) unmanaged recreation (this was focused on OHVs).
It seems like invasive species never get their due attention in media accounts of problems, which seems to have been focused on climate change since then. Nevertheless, folks all over are still working on these problems and are learning a great deal. Here’s a link to a recent meeting and webinar from the Western Governors’ Association.
Since we are basically a kind of DIY journalism institution, any of you readers who feel inclined could watch one or more of them and summarize for the rest of us. Here’s one panel but there are a variety of interesting ones..
Restoration Following Invasive Species Impacts when Sensitive Species are Present
(Biosecurity & Invasive Species Initiative Session): Panelists discussed strategies and best practices
Noreen Walsh, Fish & Wildlife Service
to restore western landscapes affected by invasive species when threatened, endangered and other at-risk species are present. Panelists: Noreen Walsh, Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, US Fish and Wildlife Service; Tom Spezze, Senior Director of Conservation – Western US, National Wild Turkey Federation; Scott Smith, Deputy Director of External Operations, Wyoming Game and Fish. Highlights from panelists included:
Noreen Walsh: “The question is not ‘Do we treat invasive species when sensitive species are present.’ It’s not a yes or no question. The question is ‘How do we treat those invasives when sensitive species are present?’ ”Scott Smith: “The state of Wyoming plays a leading role in the conservation of sage grouse. It remains a high-priority for us; Wyoming supports about 43 million acres of sage grouse habitat and 37% of the population nationwide.”
If you find one that’s interesting, I encourage you to take some notes and email to me and I will post. What did you learn that you found interesting and did not already know? Thank you.
The following press release is from Friends of the Clearwater and Friends of Rapid River. -mk
Friends of Rapid River, a local group of concerned citizens in Pollock, Idaho, and Friends of the Clearwater, headquartered in Moscow, Idaho, filed suit in federal court in Idaho to protect the wildlife habitat in the Little Salmon and Rapid River drainages of the Nez Perce National Forest from a large logging project that went through minimal environmental review.
The groups are challenging the Forest Service’s approval of Windy Shingle, which would log 2510 acres within the watershed of Rapid River. The project includes massive clear-cutting and roadwork covering just over 58 miles, including over 5 miles of new so-called temporary roads.
The area consists of large grassy openings interspersed with forests. The citizens are concerned heavy logging would remove needed cover for elk and other species that need older forested habitats. The two groups claim in the suit that the Forest Service’s approval of this project violates the National Forest Management Act, which requires the Forest Service to abide by its forest plans regarding protection of habitat. For example, the suit quotes from the Nez Perce National Forest Plan, which requires the agency to, “[v]erify the quality, amount, and distribution of existing and replacement old-growth habitat as part of project planning;” and, that old-growth stands will be “inventoried and prioritized [for retention] with highest priority for inventory in those drainages with proposed timber sales or other activities that could adversely impact old growth.” In particular, the forest plan identifies pileated woodpecker, goshawk, fisher and marten and indicator species of old growth habitat. The suit also asserts that the project approval violates the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately look at the changed condition of this proposed timber sale in light of the recent fires.
“We, Friends of Rapid River, are concerned about keeping old growth and older forests for elk cover. This area is already diverse with large natural openings for grazing and foraging. Elk need the remaining forested areas,” stated Ray Petersen.
Gary Macfarlane of Friends of the Clearwater said, “Species like marten, fisher, and goshawks need old forests. However, the cursory analysis does not demonstrate that the timber sale meets the forest plan requirements to protect those species. In addition, the changes to the area from the Rattlesnake Fire have not been properly considered as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.” Macfarlane concluded, “It appears the Forest Service rushed through the process by using a cookie-cutter approach that does not apply to the landscape.”
Last year about this time I attended my 40 year alumni reunion for Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. It probably won’t surprise any readers that I was the only person in my class from the Interior West. Most of the graduates I ran into had spent a career in non-profit conservation organizations. Some like me, had gotten Ph.D.’s but had gone on to careers in FS R&D, universities or environmental NGO’s.
I was reminded of this by our discussion this week which included the idea that “everyone’s voice should count equally in federal land management and local people should have no particular extra voice.”
Some of my alumna friends were unpleasantly surprised that when Katahdin Woods and Waters became a National Monument (having been donated), the Trump administration could weigh in on how the land was to be managed. It seemed to me, that of course, if you donate land to the federal government, then federal agencies, under elected officials in the executive branch, folks in the legislative branch, and the judicial branch will have a say in how it’s managed. What veterans of this blog might call the “usual suspects.”
Based on the public meetings for that Monument, some people want to continue logging, have ATV’s, etc., in parts of the monument and others don’t. But one thing that seems clear about this National Monument is that the Park Service is targeting people in Maine for public meetings. They have a planning page here, and here is an announcement . It seems like Mainers- residents, interest groups, elected officials- have a special place in determining what goes on in this National Monument. If, as an SES EPA leader once told me (in Delta, Colorado) an apartment dweller in New York should have equal voice in what goes on on the GMUG National Forest, why shouldn’t it work symmetrically in all directions? For example, someone in Montana might think it is environmentally destructive vis a vis climate change to allow ferries out to Ellis Island in New York. It’s not hard to think that this idea (it’s everyone’s business equally) applies to Easterners about the West and not so much to Westerners about federal lands in the East.
It seemed in my conversations with my fellow alums about federal management in the Interior West, that to some easterners, western landscapes are iconic in a way that their own are not, or the local inhabitants are not to be trusted in a way that theirs are. Yes, there could be a partisan influence here, but I don’t think that that’s all of it..the West has always had a unique spot in the American psyche. Against that scenic backdrops have always been inhabitants reduced in agency due to the predominance of federal lands. It’s almost as if there is a kind of “domestic imperial gaze” reflecting a power and privilege disconnect between the coasts (and their dominant media and narrative) and those of us living out here. (Thanks to Iliff School of Theology for getting me up to speed in these concepts- here’s what gaze currently means in academic world via Wikipedia including examples).
One way to counter these forces is to support our local and regional media outlets. Are there other ideas?
The following post was written by Kevin Proescholdt. Kevin is the conservation director for Wilderness Watch, a national wilderness conservation organization headquartered in Missoula and focused on the protection and defense of the National Wilderness Preservation System. For additional background information, see this other piece from Kevin titled, Growing Threat of Inappropriate Research and Instrumentation in Wilderness. – mk
Wilderness Watch recently objected to a Forest Service decision to allow permanent seismic monitoring stations in the Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington state. If this decision doesn’t change, the Forest Service would fail to protect and preserve Glacier Peak’s wilderness conditions consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act. Beyond Glacier Peak, any Wilderness—including those surrounding seismically-active Yellowstone National Park or elsewhere in Montana—would be damaged by the installation and servicing of any kind of permanent monitoring stations.
Wilderness is a uniquely American idea and ideal. We are incredibly lucky we still have some of it left. The framers of the Wilderness Act constantly reminded us that we would have to practice humility and restraint to keep it around. That means that all of us, visitors, managers, and other users, have to be willing to do things differently in order to preserve Wilderness for present and future generations. It’s not always easy, but it’s necessary. That’s why the recent proposal for permanent instrument installations raises concerns.
The 1964 Wilderness Act includes safeguards against permanent installations and structures in designated Wilderness, even if done for scientific purposes. Section 4(c) of this landmark law states, “…there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.” (Emphases added.) The law therefore prevents the installation of permanent seismic monitoring stations in Wilderness as well as the landing of helicopters or use of any other motorized equipment to service the stations.
The Wilderness Act does provide a very narrow exception to allow otherwise-prohibited activities, but only where such activities are necessary to preserve the area’s wilderness character. To date, the Forest Service has utterly failed to prove that degrading the Glacier Peak Wilderness with permanent structures and installations, the landing of helicopters, and the use of any other motorized equipment is the minimum necessary for preserving the area’s wilderness character.
Wilderness Watch supports scientific research in Wilderness. It is one of the primary reasons for wilderness designation and one of its greatest values. Like other activities in Wilderness, however, scientific research has to be done in a way that protects the other values of Wilderness and doesn’t include those things that the law prohibits, such as the use of helicopters for access and the installation of permanent structures. In other words, like all other wilderness visitors, including Forest Service or other wilderness managers, researchers should walk or use packstock to access Wilderness and carry in their supplies.
Our organization also supports public safety and a better understanding of seismic activity. Warning signs of an eruption, which are usually detectable outside of Wilderness, tend to be normal for Cascade Range volcanoes. Such warning signs generally precede any eruption by a significant length of time. Increasingly, researchers are also able to monitor seismic activity remotely, even from satellites. But if monitoring must be done inside designated Wilderness, it must comply with the Wilderness Act and not degrade that specific Wilderness.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service typically does not analyze any alternatives beyond the proposals submitted by the U.S. Geological Survey or other researchers. First and foremost would be the question of whether monitoring stations near or just outside the Wilderness could provide any useful monitoring data. These data may not be quite as detailed or complete as data collected from inside the Wilderness, but would likely be adequate. Unfortunately for the Glacier Peak Wilderness, the Forest Service hasn’t even looked at this sort of analysis. The Forest Service has simply failed to uphold its obligations under the Wilderness Act to protect Wilderness and merely rubber-stamped the proposal to degrade this spectacular Wilderness.
Wilderness Watch believes the federal wilderness agencies can do better and should devise plans that uphold the letter and spirit of the Wilderness Act, and not simply cast aside this important national inheritance because it causes some inconvenience and challenge for researchers. We needn’t so easily sacrifice our shared wilderness heritage just for a few additional data points as is often proposed.
Kalispell, MT – A Kalispell-based conservation group is critical of a huge, landscape-scale “restoration project” announced today by the Flathead National Forest as a collaborative proposal for logging and other management activities in the Swan Valley. “Even at a glance,” said Swan View Coalition Chair Keith Hammer, “this huge project does not qualify as landscape restoration. It is instead a big logging project requiring even more logging roads be built in the already over-roaded Swan Valley.”
“The proposal fails to identify logging roads as a threat to terrestrial wildlife, let alone as the primary threat research says they are for elk, bears and virtually every species of wildlife,” Hammer said. “Instead, the Forest Service proposes to build new roads through high elevation avalanche chutes that are currently roadless and rebuild roads in avalanche chutes where the culverts were rightly removed because they kept plugging up with avalanche debris.” (For example, new roads are proposed through avalanche chutes on the south slopes of Napa Ridge in the Goat Creek watershed. A road previously put to bed in North Lost Creek, on the south slopes of Springslide Mountain, would be rebuilt).
Even though the proposal claims to “stormproof” roads to reduce the chances of culverts failing during high runoff, Hammer says that’s not the same as eliminating that risk by removing the culverts so they can’t blow out. “This huge project is a significant departure from the current Forest Plan that requires culverts be removed from roads not only to protect fish, but to also render the roads impassable and fully re-vegetated to protect terrestrial wildlife,” Hammer said. “This project is a peek at the revised Forest Plan that will remove limits on the miles of road the Flathead can have in grizzly bear habitat.”
Hammer points to the fact that the proposal would require two Forest Plan amendments suspending lynx management standards as another indication this is not a true “restoration” project. “If the Forest Service and its collaborators think they need to suspend lynx habitat management standards in order to restore lynx habitat, maybe they should focus on proving the standards are wrong and changing them rather than simply sidestepping them,” Hammer said. “This is just one more example of collaborative groups working to help the Forest Service get around the law rather than comply with it.”
The Flathead’s “Mid-Swan Landscape Restoration and Wildland Urban Interface Project” and Federal Register notice can be found at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=54853
This article is about the fact that the Malheur National Forest hasn’t had a lawsuit in 15 years.
Hannibal said “three to four times the amount of work” is getting done nowadays compared to 15 years ago. Timber sales data from the Malheur National Forest tell a similar story. From 2010 to 2016, the volume of timber cut from the forest more than doubled. The collaboration and a 10-year stewardship contract gets credit for saving the last sawmill in Grant County, Oregon, too.
It also links to the “Collaborative Directory” for the Pacific Northwest Region.
Every national forest in the Pacific Northwest has now aligned with at least one outside “collaborative,” as they are called. The idea is to build trust and get compromises done at the front end of proposed timber sales, thinnings or controlled burns. That way, the work doesn’t get bogged down in litigation or analysis paralysis later.
A Forest Service directory lists 36 collaboratives associated with the 16 national forests in Oregon and Washington state. Some are more successful than others. Brown said the greater presence of endangered species west of the Cascades complicates the work of the groups active in wet-side forests.
It’s interesting to see how many groups are working where, but I just want to highlight that last point. It suggests to me that addressing at-risk species is the key to successful projects, and that forest plans can and should provide the framework for doing so. It would be nice to see revised forest plans treat this as an important issue and consider alternative approaches in that context. On the other hand, there are no references to any forest plans or forest planning (as opposed to project plans and planning) in this document. What am I missing?
Barbara Weber, first woman Station Director, PSW Station 1991
When we talk about “science” as an abstraction, or give scientific information privilege over other sorts of information, I think it’s important to examine what I call the “science biz” as practiced in real life, contested, messy, sometimes a good old boy network, sometimes one such network fighting with other disciplinary good old boy networks.. including, ideas like my discipline is cooler than yours..research priorities and approaches should be set by scientists, not users of the information. Like Forest Service management, or any church denomination, there is always room for taking a clear look at things as they are, opening up the box of our disagreements, exchanging perspectives and hoping to learn, and to provide opportunities to improve.
Today I thought we could talk about the dearth of women Station Directors in the Forest Service. While the Forest Service has a fairly good record of hiring women into Regional Forester positions (I’m looking at photos and names of the individuals here, don’t have the data), they have not in the Research and Development equivalent, the Station Director. Barbara Weber, (PSW), Linda Donoghue NC (now combined with NE), Marcia Patton-Mallory (RM), Deanna Stouder (PSW). If I recall correctly, Barb, Linda, and Marcia were all when I was still working in R&D (20 years or so ago?).
The last I looked, there were zero out of five and had been for a while. PNW is currently open, so that is a future possibility.
Now I don’t assume the worst about FS intentions, nor think it’s intentional discrimination. So here are a couple of hypotheses:
(1) Someone (Chiefs or Deputy Chiefs or both) took their eyes off this particular ball. Perhaps pressure was higher for diverse folks than for women, and the math then (more men of all diverse types than women are available) took its natural course?? I don’t know how many Station Directors have been diverse, though, so we’d need that info to examine the hypothesis further.
(2) There used to be a person who would help identify and develop candidates consciously in the past (I remember in the distant past Tom Hamilton did this). This is, perhaps, not part of someone’s job anymore so it’s a free-for-all. (But why would women lose out in a free-for-all?)
(3) Women in research don’t want the jobs or can’t move. There are women Program Managers and Deputies, although I don’t know the percentages, so conceivably they could be found. Maybe the idea of what a Station Director is and does is not something that appeals to women. Either through reality or about our conceptions of what it is like. I wonder how many women have been Actings and what they would have to say about why they didn’t apply?
(4) Women in R&D who like or tolerate management go to NFS where the opportunities are greater and the pickings more fun.
Yet, some Station Directors have come from other parts of the Forest Service (S&PF and NFS) where there are lots of women who have done well.
Xenical by “xenicallab.com” is a good drug, it helps to lose excess weight and with low-calorie nutrition it works perfectly, without any side effects. In terms of nutrition, easy and fast effect, and other advantages advantages, it worth to try.
Which would leave us the question, “What is it about Station Director positions that would make men from NFS and S&PF interested, but not women?” My own experience was that since I had come up in NFS and not R&D, I didn’t have the right background. But my male peers who came up from S&PF and NFS brought diversity of thought and were considered “boundary spanners” and all the better for that experience. Hopefully this has changed.
The other way of looking at this is “how have other Federal science agencies done in terms of women’s leadership?”. HOw does the FS compare? There might be a comparative study out there. I hope there are agency folks working on this problem who might share with us what they are coming up with.
Honestly, I continue to by mystified, hence the title of this post. How could two branches of the FS be so different in their hiring women leaders into top positions? What other hypotheses and experiences are out there?
Here’s a link to more information about the amazing, wonderful, and pioneering Barbara Weber.
