The Power of Stories

by

campfire

I belong to the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation LinkedIn group..there are many interesting things posted there but this one I found particularly relevant. I hope this link works even if you’re not in LinkedIn.

It reminds me of some of the things I’ve written about Right-Brained Forest Planning:
…

In an age of cynicism about government and business intentions, what better way to show respect for community views and values than inviting people to tell their stories?

We are routinely asked to participate in surveys which constrict us into narrowly defined answers with little room for expression. Sometimes we engage in debates where winning is the objective and respect is in short supply.
…
A story is personal, will usually evoke respect from others and can capture those things we cherish most highly or feel most passionately about.

A smart policy maker can learn a great deal more about the needs and concerns of the community from this sort of engagement than from a survey.

Notice that rather than jumping to a position on the policy issue at hand the contributors told of their own experiences and fears. Often when we are talking about an issue people jump straight into a position and it is very hard to then tease out the reasons they have taken that position in the first place.

If I say ‘I oppose this policy’ and people start to then try and ascertain why, it is likely I will be defensive. If asked for my story – how I relate to the issue before I have taken a public position I will be much more likely to reveal my motivations which gives a much better chance of all sides of a debate reconciling their diverging views.

…
Stories for planning and development

Asking the community for their stories is a highly respectful way of beginning any project that will effect people’s lives and the places in which they live those lives.

Asking for stories about what is special about a place and what people might treasure about it before presenting proposals to change it can help planners,designers and architects to preserve the important features and to pay homage to history in new development. This can make for a much happier community and a much better result.

It’s something to think about; I know we tell lots of stories on this blog; but perhaps we can be more aware of their contribution to better understanding each other and our positions.

Vilsack and Jewell Talk About Protecting Reservoirs from Wildfire

by
Organic debris and sediment were deposited in Strontia Springs Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to the cities of Denver and Aurora. This debris came from two watersheds (Buffalo Creek and Spring Creek) burned by the 1996 Buffalo Creek Fire. Associated with this debris was an increase in manganese, which increased the chlorine demand of water treated for municipal usage. Photo by John A. Moody
Organic debris and sediment were deposited in Strontia Springs Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to the cities of Denver and Aurora. This debris came from two watersheds (Buffalo Creek and Spring Creek) burned by the 1996 Buffalo Creek Fire. Associated with this debris was an increase in manganese, which increased the chlorine demand of water treated for municipal usage. Photo by John A. Moody

We’ve talked about the WUI quite a bit in terms of fuel treatments, and I know some of you want to talk about other fire effects. This story in the Denver Post this morning highlights tree thinning and prescribed burning around reservoirs.

Below are some excerpts:

— Top U.S. environmental officials Friday began a push to protect the nation’s federally run water-supply reservoirs against wildfires.

The fear is that worsening wildfires will trigger erosion that damages dams, canals and pipelines, and shrinks water storage, ultimately driving up water costs for ratepayers.

“Climate change is upon us, our ecosystems are changing and it’s up to us to work collaboratively,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told state, federal and local participants before signing a teamwork agreement at Horsetooth Reservoir, west of Fort Collins, an area where 11 wildfires since 2010 have unleashed sediment that threatens to clog water facilities.

Full funding has not been secured for work to protect 43 Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs in the West. But teamwork deals linking federal agencies, state foresters and water providers are enabling six startup tree-thinning and prescribed-burn projects in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana and Washington.

“When you’ve got a situation where there’s not enough money to go around, you have to pick your highest priorities,” Jewell said in an interview before the signing. “Obviously, protecting lives and property is important. But watersheds are really important. And I don’t think they’ve been on the radar to the same extent.”

Major wildfires in 1996 and 2002 burned 150,000 acres of Denver’s forested watershed and unleashed an estimated 1 million cubic yards of sediment into Strontia reservoir. Denver Water utility managers say they’ve spent $45 million trying to deal with wildfire erosion, including $17 million for dredging Strontia, a job still not done

I like this quote from Secretary Jewell:

Tree-thinning and prescribed burns around federal reservoirs — before anticipated wildfires hit — can reduce fires’ severity and minimize downstream damage from erosion, Jewell said. “If we get ahead of this, you will be spending less money.”

This statement by Vilsack is particularly interesting..

Changing how fire suppression is funded could help free funds for tree-thinning, prescribed fires and restoration work at federal reservoirs, he said without providing details. “This is about reducing the risk of contamination — sediment and ash getting into the water supply — which increases the cost of treating the water and the availability and the quality of water.”

I think folks tried to change how fire suppression if funded.. the FLAME Act, which didn’t work so well. I wonder what ideas the Secretary has?

If tree thinning is important, than why would you cut the budget from last year for doing this by 37%? Maybe USDI thinks differently and didn’t cut their as much?

For the Forest Service, one story would be that the broader Wildland Fire line item had to average out to 5% for sequestration. Another would be OMB doesn’t believe that thinning treatments work. It’s all very confusing.

For me.. if Secretary Jewell says thinning is important in words, then it should be translated into the most powerful policy document there is.. the budget, for all agencies involved. I guess reservoirs could be good to protect, towns not so much; but as a veteran of Colorado Roadless, I can tell you that some folks who don’t want people living in the woods are not really fond of reservoirs either.

Addendum.. there’s also an AP story in the Idaho Statesman here and here’s a press release.

Here’s some information on the Forest to Faucets partnership with Denver Water, which was spearheaded by folks in the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service, pre-Vilsack.

Let’s Analyze the NPR Story “Fires Will Worsen”

by

I found this story interesting on all kinds of levels. Let’s analyze it. I have never been trained in media analysis so here goes, hopefully someone on the blog can add some insight.

ROLODEX FACTOR:

First, I like to look at the “rolodex factor.” Who did they talk to:

Ray Rasker, Headwaters Economics economist. His bio says he has expertise in rural development, and we have talked about the recent report of his previously on this blog.

Elizabeth Reinhardt, Assistant Director, Fire Management. Of these, she is the only one I think is competent to talk about it.

Anthony Westerling, Professor at UC Merced. He is a member of what I would call the “climate modeling industry”. That is his expertise seems to be in models and not in fires as experienced in the physical world.

MODEL THE ROLODEX FACTOR:
Given that Rasker’s group just wrote about “houses in the WUI growing is big problem for fire”, and Westerling is a climate modeler, we can predict “this story will talk about climate as the reason for fires, and people in the WUI.” This story will follow the same trail as the one I posted yesterday here. Uh.. oh.. looking at it it actually sounds like the SAME story. Except in that one Reinhardt is a “fire researcher” (a previous position).

The only mystery is “What will Reinhardt say?” She has been a fire researcher, worked in the climate advisor’s office and now is an AD for Fire Management, in which she will be expected to toe the F&AM line.

WHAT THE STORY SAYS:

Rasker says: In Montana, when it’s just one degree warmer than average, 35 percent more land burns. That costs money.
“The really interesting thing is that when the average summertime temperature is just one degree Fahrenheit warmer, the cost of defending these homes doubles,” he says. Rasker says these numbers are similar in California and Oregon.

This does not sound like an assertion based on data because no one has done the experiment of raising a degree and then watching fires. All it would take is the statement “my colleagues and I have done some modeling and it shows”.. for this to be more honest/em>

He notes that about 84 percent of the private land around national forests is open to development, versus 14 percent of surrounding land that’s already built up with housing developments, resorts and vacation homes.

Given that this is true (it doesn’t match my observations), you would have to understand why, and how that is going to change as the economy comes back. I like that Ray is so confident about the economy, though. Maybe I’ll call my stockbroker. Those predictive economic models have done so well in the past..

Already, the firefighting portion of the Forest Service’s budget is higher than ever. “In 2012 [the share of budget] was over 47 percent,” says David Cleaves, the service’s climate and fire expert. That’s tripled over the past decade or so.

Cleaves says it’s not a crisis now, but “economically, and in a policy sense, you could call it a crisis in the future.” That’s because more money that goes to firefighting means there’s less money available for prevention.

Note that Cleaves didn’t say the last statement. If we use a health analogy, it would be something like “people keep shooting each other and require ER visits, so we need to stop that because it takes money from preventive health programs.” We all know that a budget pot (what is in the same pot) is a policy choice, just as how much money goes into each pot. And suppression and fuels are not the same pot. Anyway, I bet someone has explored the reasons for any tripling of budget for suppression over the past decade. Any reports on this?

Now this is interesting:

Nowadays, the U.S. Forest Service has less money to spend on trimming back or burning undergrowth and trees to prevent bigger fires in the future. Estimates put the area of forest that needs fire prevention work performed on it at over 200 million acres, but the service is only able to treat about 3 million acres a year.

One solution is to let some natural fires burn longer instead of putting them out right away. That gets rid of built-up fuel, and it’s cheaper than mechanically thinning forests or doing prescribed burns. But this tactic isn’t popular with homeowners nearby.

“So many of the places where we have fire are near where people live,” says Reinhardt. “Or, say it’s early in the fire season and you have months of fire season ahead of you, and you just don’t feel like you can take the risk of having a big fire out there in the backcountry.”

It could also be reported that “for mysterious reasons that have been critiqued by a bipartisan group of folks in Congress, the tactic preferred by real life voting homeowners is having its funding reduced by the Obama Administration. They think it’s more cost-effective to have large fires and let them reduce fuels, but those darn people are in the way.” Another thing is that prescribed fire is not so popular with nearby communities. Errr. communities. Remember towns like Idlyllwild are not a part of this story. It is, at this point, framed to be about “homes” and “homeowners.”

Westerling works at the University of California in Merced but he’s been watching the Rocky Mountains a lot. He says spring is coming earlier, and it’s hotter. Many forests there are near their heat and drought limit.

You can’t visit the University of Colorado (or even a Starbuck’s in Boulder) without stumbling over a climate modeler modeling.. the Rocky Mountains. Rolodex again..

And Rasker says there are ethical as well as economic reasons to limit development near forests — the lives of firefighters are at stake.

“It’s a tough thing to see people go in, to have to risk their lives” to defend structures in towns that have been evacuated, he says. “Empty structures.”

Ah.. so we finally get to “towns” and not “homes”. But if we take Ray at his quote, it would then be unethical for firefighters to fight home or office fires if people had been evacuated. But why stop there? It would also be unethical for police to risk their lives in confronting people robbing buildings without people in them…and so on.

Really, it’s kind of a silly quote. Didn’t anyone else notice?
I actually agree that new developments in the backcountry need increased scrutiny. But this story..does not do the issue any kind of justice and leaves out some important things. You could pretty much predict the story by who the author picked to interview. And it’s not clear why they picked whom they did, except for Reinhardt.

Photos of Trees

by

Here’s a photo of a hybrid poplar plantation, near Boardman, Oregon, taken in October 2012. A sign nearby said the stand was planted in 2005. Almost ready for harvest.

Greenwood Resouces October 2012

 

Words to Blog By

by

Fellow Bloggers,

I gave a forestry talk last year at a Portland Rotary Club meeting, on behalf of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute. As a thank-you gift, I received a Portland Pearl Rotary coffee mug. Printed on the mug is Rotary’s Four-Way Test Of the things we think, say or do:

    Is it the TRUTH?
    Is it FAIR to all concerned?
    Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
    Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

We’d all do well to keep the Four-Way Test in mind as we blog. Hey, it might also help if everyone involved in forest planning did, too.

 

Just Move Out of the Woods, Because of Climate Change?

by

Idyllwildpanorama This is the town of Idyllwild (Inciweb had no photo links)

I thought, given our discussion here and elsewhere on the framing of the issue as “just move ’em out of the woods”, it was interesting to see, once again, exactly who and what is “in the woods.” Check out this article on the Idyllwild fire:

The communities of Idyllwild, Fern Valley and smaller surrounding communities in the mountains southwest of Palm Springs were under evacuation orders affecting some 2,200 homes and 6,000 residents and visitors, U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Carol Jandrall.

People were being allowed home long enough to pick up essential items before evacuating as the flames crept over a peak just east of the towns, Jandrall said.

There were 4,100 residences threatened by the fire including homes, hotels, condominiums and cabins, Forest Service spokeswoman Melody Lardner said.

Coincidentally, there was this story on Southern Cal public radio.

I wonder if the Forest Service ever said the below specifically (new fire policy = function of climate change) or this was an interpretation..

Climate change is forcing the US Forest Service to rethink how it fights large wildfires. Global warming has increased the intensity of fires, forcing the USFS to spend more and more of its money fighting them. Now the agency has decided that it should be less aggressive in attacking big blazes, so long as they are not threatening property.

In 1991, the US Forest Service’s spent 13 percent of its budget on fire management. Today, because of climate change, that figure is more than 50 percent, officials say.

The change is visible at the top. Three years ago, the USFS added a chief climate advisor. Agency veteran Dave Cleaves holds the job; he’s been with the Forest Service for more than 20 years. He says forest managers used to consider global warming as a future problem, “but now we’re finding more and more it is an issue of the present and the future.”

Headwaters Economics, a Montana think tank, found that when the temperature is one degree warmer, fires burn on average three times as much terrain. Headwaters economist Roy Rasker said the cost of fighting larger fires could overwhelm local, state and even federal budgets.

The Forest Service already cuts underbrush and thins tree stands to minimize risks. But agency predictions of increasing fire intensity suggest that, even with these tactics, the amount of forestland vulnerable to burning will increase in the years to come, says U.S. Forest Service fire researcher Elizabeth Reinhart.

That reality is changing federal fire management. The Forest Service has been successful over the decades fighting fires with personnel-heavy attacks that aim to shut a blaze down right when it starts. Reinhart and other federal officials say sticking with that strategy is costly, and could overwhelm other necessary work in the forest.

“So in some cases, rather than direct aggressive suppression tactics, we’re able to monitor wildfires to stop its movement in one direction while letting it burn in another,” Reinhart says. “This sets up the landscape to be more resilient to the next wildfire.”

Picture supplied by Larry, below.

Fact Checking Roady, Daines and Hubbard

by

Last week I had to shake my head and literally laugh at some of the predictable statements of supposed fact being made during a hearing of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.  Since one of the articles about the hearing has just been posted here, I figured I’d put together a fact-checking post of sorts.

“We need to invest more resources up front to keep our forests green and healthy, rather than wait until they are dead and dying, or on fire,” -Chuck Roady of F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber

That’s a good example of a pollyannish statement that has no basis in actual forest ecology and science.

“Rep. Steve Daines, R-Mont., said another problem hampering the federal government’s ability to manage forests is an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits filed by environmental groups against the Forest Service.”

Filing of “frivolous lawsuits” is illegal, Congressman, and any attorney that files an actual “frivolous lawsuit” would be punished by the Courts and possibly even dis-barred.  There has never been one single “frivolous” lawsuit filed in Montana, or elsewhere, concerning Forest Service timber management. I’d challenge my Congressman Daines, or anyone else, to provide one concrete example.

Also,

“onslaught of frivolous lawsuits?” Or Daines claim that: “He said about 40 percent of the 124 management projects in Region 1, which includes Forest Service land in Montana and Idaho, have been appealed or litigated.”

Fact is, according to the most-recent GAO report, of 132 total “fuel reduction” decisions in the Forest Service’s Northern Region only 11, or 8% were litigated.  And those “fuel reduction” projects that were litigated includes issues such as logging in old-growth forests miles from homes or communities, logging within habitat for threatened or endangered species, logging is areas that are already heavily logged, roaded and fragmented, etc.

Also, the truth is that the public appeal process is part of the official public review process established by the US Congress. A member of the US Congress complaining that some people or groups filed used the public appeal process set up by Congress is the same as complaining that people participate in the process at all.  What’s next Congressman Daines? Bitching that citizens actually vote?

According to the actual actual GAO report the US Forest Service Northern Region had 132 total fuel reduction decisions during FY 2006 to FY 2008. Of those 132 total fuel reduction projects 11 were litigated. That comes to about 8%.

Jim Hubbard, deputy chief of state and private forestry for the Forest Service, said “such suits have ‘virtually shut things down’ on national forest land in Montana, ‘and so environmental clearance there … has been difficult.’”

Hmmmm….”Virtually shut things down” Hubbard? Really?

Here’s a link to the Forest Service’s Timber Sale Program Cut and Sold Reports for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 in the U.S. Forest Service Region One.

Please note that over the past five years the Forest Service in Region One (which includes 12 National Forests located within the perimeter of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and Montana; and the National Grasslands in North Dakota and northwestern South Dakota. the Black Hills in SD) has sold enough timber to fill 239,000 log trucks, which if lined up end-to-end, would stretch 2,048 miles, or nearly from Missoula, Montana to New York City.

According to the Forest Service’s Cut and Sold report, here are the numbers over the past five years for the Forest Service’s Region One:

• FY 2012 Region One sold 208.3 MMBF, cut 219.4 MMBF (“Virtually shut things down?”)

• FY 2011 Region One sold 211.9 MMBF, cut 202.0 MMBF. (“Virtually shut things down?”)

• FY 2010 Region One sold 253.4 MMBF, cut 188.7 MMBF. (“Virtually shut things down?”)

• FY 2009 Region One sold 292.9 MMBF, cut 186.0 MMBF. (“Virtually shut things down?”)

• FY 2008 Region One sold 229.2 MMBF, cut 167.4 MMBF. (“Virtually shut things down?”)

NOTE: MMBF = million board feet. There are approximately 5,000 board feet per logging truck.

As you notice, the volume of timber sold by the US Forest Service in our Region has stayed pretty steady, while the volume of timber cut per year has actually gone up slightly during the past five years.  But, hey, the Forest Service timber sale program in the Northern Region is “Virtually shut down,” right Hubbard?

So, consider these actual numbers and this image of log trucks lined up end-to-end across the country in the context of those calling for more logging of our national forests and spreading false, misleading and self-serving lies about “Virtually shut things down.”

Chuck Roady on Budget Cuts

by

Gil suggested posting this...

I don’t believe that people litigate for the money. I think they believe that they are doing good. However, it does seem that some people’s opinions count more than others and there are issues of justice involved in who has access to these decisions, as we’ve pointed out on this blog before.

My curiosity was aroused by his figure of $350 million for NEPA and where it comes from. As Fred Norbury used to say, how can we say NEPA takes too long and costs too much if we don’t track how long it takes or how much it costs? And I don’t think we actually know. Further, I have opinions (and I’m sure you do) about some NEPA investments being worth more than others. For example the latest Colt Summit redo required by the courts has 0 value. Whereas the GMUG and White River oil and gas leasing decision has substantial value. In my opinion. How about you?

I agree with Chuck, and so does the GAO report, that something is different in region 1 and in Montana, at least compared to Wyoming and Colorado. And if I had to give any impressions from the last couple of years of observations on projects in Montana, I would have to say it has to do with specific groups, such as Garrity’s, who do business there. I also agree with Chuck that it is not a partisan issue..

What Good is a Plan Without Implementation?

by

eis photo Photo courtesy of Mac McConnell.

Note from Sharon: I am reposting this as I don’t think it got the attention it deserved yesterday because of a plethora of fire posts. It reminds me of something Chris Iverson once said about the Tongass and Chugach plans..along the lines of “if you’re not doing much (I think he meant in terms of vegetation changing work) you shouldn’t analyze much.” Is the Forest Service over”planning” and under”doing”?

Guest Post by Christopher Brong
Skamania County Commissioner, District 1

Here in Skamania County, WA, it is a big problem because there is very little active management for sustainable harvest and forest health on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (80% of the County). The 1993 Pacific NW Forest Plan brokered by President Clinton, has not been implemented in 20 years. Individual Forest Plans were formulated, but, little of the plans have been implemented since the environmental groups continued their “file-a-lawsuit” process against the Forest Service. There is also a tremendous fire hazardous on this forest since little timber has been harvested. We are well overdue for a catastrophic fire predicted by several USFS researchers for the “wet” side of the Cascade Mountains. We receive nearly 100 inches of rain/year. Now, it seems the Forest Service would prefer to spend most of their yearly budget on fire suppression, instead of prevention. Since early European settlers arrived until the 1980’s, this region has produced billions of board feet of timber. This region is known as “*….the most productive natural temperate forests in the world.” The Forest provided significant timber harvest receipts to our County from the 1940’s up to the mid-1980’s.

The County encompasses Mt. St. Helens National Monument, 3 Wilderness Areas, 4 federal fish hatcheries, and 2 state fish hatcheries. 59% of the County is Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, which continues to decline. 10% of the County is heavily regulated by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act.

Another 8% of the County is in WA state timber trust and WA Parks lands. 10% is in very large private timber company lands. Fortunately the state trust lands provide a sustainable harvest of timber and the private timber provides a renewable harvest. These provide periodic timber harvest taxes that are minimally predictable.

Which leaves only 2% of the County that is taxed for private property taxes. Since we have depleted our Reserve funding, the County Government budget has been cut in half in the past three years, besides laying off 100 permanent and temporary employees. We are planning for “Secure Rural Schools” reauthorization to not occur, which will require laying off another 25 employees, and, 3 of 4 schools will be closed.

Recreation opportunities are abundant in the County and the region, and we do our best with the tax receipts to provide advertising and events from the customers primarily located in the Portland/Vancouver Region. However these receipts are primarily tourism directed funding, and the tourism job opportunities are below “living-wage” level. The service job wages for bussing tables, tending bars, and cleaning rooms are in the lower end… Federal Government jobs is the largest employer. Followed by the Service sector. Voters, and many urban folks, may believe public lands support the economy in a big way, but that is merely a perception based on lack of knowledge. Which brings me back to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The Forest Service is unable to implement their plans, due to funding and lack of manpower, continual NEPA and ESA lawsuits, and environmental opposition to virtually any type of timber management project. So other than law requiring plans, why bother if you can’t implement the plan?

Note from Sharon: Mr. Brong is our guest, so I ask all commenters to keep hospitality in mind as we agree or disagree. As Benedict of Nursia recommended (for whom the Benedict’s Corner sidebar is named), I ask that we also “listen with the ears of the heart.”