The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views - Community Sourced, Shared and Supported

Who’d Have Known? 47% of CFLR Projects Nationally Appealed

May 14, 2013 by Matthew Koehler

It seems like I’ve written this same sentence numerous times over the past few years, so I might as well just paste it here again:

“The Colt Summit timber sale – and subsequent appeal and lawsuit – on the Lolo National Forest in Montana has been the source of much previous debate on this site, even though this was the first timber sale lawsuit on the Lolo National Forest in over 6 years.”

In 2009 the Colt Summit timber sale was included as a Forest Service-generated project in the grant proposal the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative (SWCC) in Montana submitted to the Forest Service for funding under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program.

As I’ve pointed out previously, back in 2009 to 2010 the Lolo National Forest Supervisor was the co-chair of the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative, meaning that essentially the Lolo National Forest Supervisor was writing a grant proposal to the Forest Service as a Forest Service employee to fund the Forest Service. And yet this is called “collaboration?”

Even today, 33% of the voting members of the SWCC are current, paid Forest Service employees. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative group requires new members to sign a “Duty of Loyalty Oath” prior to full participation, which reads: “Each member of the collaborative has a duty of loyalty to the collaborative.”

(There might be a few awkward transitions in this post, and here comes the first one.)

The reason I’m bringing up all this background information about the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative and the Colt Summit timber sale is because of the extraordinary lengths some members of that group – mainly the Montanan Wilderness Association and the Bozeman office of The Wilderness Society – went to when Friends of the Wild Swan and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed an appeal, and subsequent lawsuit, against the logging portions of the Colt Summit timber sale because they believed the Forest Service’s cumulative effects analysis for Canada lynx was inadequate.

Readers may recall that the Montana Wilderness Association was essentially lying to the public telling them that the lawsuit was threatening important watershed restoration work that was part of the project. Turns out, the plaintiffs never challenged any of that work and the Forest Service admitted that the restoration work was already under contract and moving forward. When we attempted to point out this fact on the social media sites of the Montana Wilderness Association, those fact-based, professional comments were simply censored and removed by Montana Wilderness Association employees and we were banned from ever commenting on the site again. Great example of open, inclusive, transparent “collaboration,” eh?

My belief is that much of the PR work from Montana Wilderness Association and a few of the other collaborators about the Colt Summit timber sale and the SWCC was essentially an extension of the million dollar plus PR campaign we’ve seen in Montana for the past 6 years to support Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

The expensive TV ads, full page newspaper ads, the radio spots, the dog-n-pony, one-sided “public” meetings, the canned talking-points inspired letters to the editor (which I suspect are generated by MWA employees who then call their members or simply get an unsuspecting 19 year old college students to sign and submit the LTE) and so forth. Make no mistake, and I’ve said this before, some of what we are witnessing in Montana under the guise of “collaboration” is nothing more than a political take-over of some of our national forests that has the potential to forever change America’s public lands legacy for the worse.

Which brings me back to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. We’ve debated the merits of this program before on the blog and some of us have questioned the “accomplishments” that those supporting the CFLRP program seem to tout every year.

For example, when the CFLRP participants released the supposed list of program accomplishments just prior to Christmas last year, Sharon wrote, “A little birdie told me that some of the figures in the report below are not accurate” in regards to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program report.

I made a comment that, “Obviously some people put a lot of effort into this fancy-looking report to pat themselves on the back for the supposed achievements of the CFLRP, but I’m calling BS on many of the achievement claims made by these CFLRP collaborators in this report. There is simply no way possible that all of the work listed in the report was achieved with a little CFLRP funding. Many of these CFLRP collaboratives are dramatically over-inflating accomplishments directly attributed to the CFLRP and are taking credit for work that the Forest Service would have done anyway, regardless of if CFLRP passed or if $10 million was allocated to these 10 projects around the country.”

In other words, I firmly believe that some members of some CFLRP’s around the country are double- and triple-counting to make their program seem more successful than it actually is. It’s almost as if they give the public the impression that the Forest Service has zero budget outside of what the CFLR program provides.

For example, if CFLRP funding accounts for 25% of the funding needed to complete X amount of logging on a certain forest should the CFLRP collaborators claim credit for the entire X amount of logging? Or would it be more honest for the CFLRP collaborators to claim credit for 25% of the logging? I certainly believe that the later is entirely more accurate, while the former is a complete exaggeration bordering on outright lying.

(Another awkward transition….)

So, this morning I was sent a copy of the latest meeting notes for the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative group from Friends of the Wild Swan, a group that’s keeping close tabs on some of the goings-on with the SWCC in their backyard.

What really caught my eye was this statement of fact in the notes:

“Nationally over the 20 CFLR projects there have been 49 decisions. Of those, 47% have been appealed or objected to and one litigated. Several of the appellants were part of local collaborative group.”

What’s that? You mean that while some of these CFLR collaborators are using some questionable accounting procedures to make it seem like their program is much more successful than it really is, these same CFLR collaborators aren’t letting the public know in their glossy, end-of-the-year accomplish report that 47% of all CFLR project decisions have been appealed? Including appeals by some of the same people/groups/interests that are part of these collaborative groups?

Since this figure was presented by the Forest Service and placed into official notes of the SWCC, one has to assume that somewhere, somebody has an actual spreadsheet or report about the fact that 47% of all CFLR project decisions have been appealed/objected to. For certain, I’ll be in contact with the SWCC to see if they will provide more information about this, and I’d encourage other people around the country to write their CFLR collaborative and see what additional information can be uncovered.

The public deserves nothing but full openness and transparency when it comes to the management of America’s public lands, so hopefully some members of these CFLR collaboratives will cease the shell-game PR campaign and be more honest about the CFLR program.

UPDATE: Sandy Mack, the Forest Service’s Liaison Officer for the Southwestern Crown of the Continent CFLRP just sent me the following spreadsheet based on my information request. I haven’t had time to look it over, but wanted to make sure it was up here so anyone interested could take a look at it.

As an aside, does anyone else know of another CFLRP collaborative in the country that has it’s own Forest Service-appointed (and paid) Liaison Officer? Is that a common practice? Or could it just be further proof that what’s happening in Montana with the SWCC is way outside the norms of Forest Service “collaboration?”

Idea for Congress: Give Forest Service Flexibility

May 14, 2013 by Sharon

Two articles of interest this morning.. reductions in firefighter hires due to sequestration.. as in the LA Times story here…

Here is an excerpt:

The U.S. Forest Service will hire 500 fewer firefighters this year, the result of “line by line” budget reductions required by Congress, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a conference call with reporters. The reduced staffing also means 50 fewer fire engines will be available, Vilsack said.
Vilsack and Interior Secretary Sally Jewel said much of the West would face severe fire danger this summer.
“We will no doubt be seeing some fires of significant size,” Vilsack said.
The Interior Department is also expected to cut its firefighting forces.
The Forest Service hires firefighters in spring and retains them through fall, Tom Harbour, the Forest Service’s national director of fire and aviation management, said in an interview Monday. Last year, when 9.3 million acres burned in the United States, the Forest Service hired 10,500 firefighters. The Interior Department fielded another 2,500.
California is expected to be the most imperiled of the dry Western states. The state this year has received only 25% of the rainfall that it received in the same period for 2012, National Interagency Fire Center fire analyst Jeremy Sullens said. Other states expected to be hit hard are Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Idaho, along with portions of other states.
Because of the danger California is in, the Forest Service does not plan to reduce hiring there, Harbour said. The reductions will more likely affect Eastern states, where the danger is less serious this year.

I also saw this here:

The U.S. Forest Service is awarding $772,820 to help national forests improve or implement conservation education programs for kids in 16 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This award is part of the more than $2.26 million dedicated to connecting American kids to Nature. It includes more than $1.49 million in partner contributions, according to a spokesperson for the Forest Service.
“Forest Service conservation education programs inspire young people to start exploring the natural world around them, which develops a life-long appreciation for the environment,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “Our partnerships help ensure that we bring the great outdoors to children, whether in an urban or rural setting.”

Remember, the same Forest Service had to ask for money back from States (asked for money back) but is also giving out new grants…

It seems to me that if Congress would let USDA/FS switch among line items.. then we could apply my bureacratic prioritization process, or some other rational process that could be explained to the public.

1. Real danger to people, fish, soil, air, tourism, water storage, and properties. Fires yes, lack of conservation education, not.

2. Critical as to timing– fires this year, either there is real danger of bad fires this year or it’s fire hype.. someone in government should be able to tell the difference. Not so timing-critical is conservation education.

3. Across the government, how many uncoordinated efforts are there? Just in my everyday dealings before I retired, I ran across the National Park Service, NSF and EPA having some form of conservation education. Maybe Congress could ask for volunteers (retirees) from all these agencies (and the others no doubt) to review the different programs (I’m sure other agencies do it as well) and make recommendations for combinations and coordination. They might even be “educating” at cross purposes.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against conservation education, it is a great and important program. I do have something against apparent inability to prioritize and coordinate among federal agencies. And if it would take some freeing action by Congress to allow agencies to do it, then let’s ask Congress to do it.

What are your thoughts? How would you prioritize?

Federal workers would get cash for pinpointing government savings

May 13, 2013 by Sharon

Thanks to an alert reader for this submission:

Hope there is a panel of (volunteer) externals to review these for each agency..otherwise we’ll we might have suggestions like “answering the phone even less often when federal retirees call OMB..”

I think the FS might have done something like this during the Pilot period. It was very incentivizing! Hopefully retirees can also input suggestions and maybe get a half of one percent? How about contractors and the public?

P.S. I don’t know anyone who believes that end-of-year spending flurries are the optimum use of federal resources.

WASHINGTON — By MICHAEL COLLINS
Federal employees could soon have a big incentive to help the government save money: They could take home a share of the savings.
A bill filed Thursday by U.S. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., would give bonuses to federal workers who come up with ways for the government to save money. The employees could receive 1 percent of the total cost savings, or up to $10,000.
Fleischmann said offering the bonuses would not only be a way to encourage workers to cut wasteful spending, it also could return to the U.S. Treasury millions of unused tax dollars that could then be applied toward deficit reduction.
“This is a bill that I think will appeal to all fiscally responsible members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — because it’s just a good, common sense bill,” Fleischmann said.
Federal agencies are appropriated a certain amount of funds every year. “Right now, sadly, what happens is when a government agency is allotted funds, sometimes those funds are not really needed,” Fleischmann said.
Regardless, critics say, agencies rush to spend unused dollars in the last quarter of the fiscal year, encouraging a “use-it-or-lose-it” mentality.
Fleischmann’s bill, known as the EASY Savings Act, seeks to end that practice by encouraging government workers to look for and suggest ways to stop frivolous spending. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has filed the Senate version of the bill.
The legislation has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the American Taxpayers Union and other government watchdog groups.
“In order to bring spending reform to Washington, we need to make fundamental changes such as improving the incentive structure,” said James Valvo, director of policy for Americans For Prosperity. “The EASY Savings Act would provide better incentives for federal agencies and grant recipients to return unused funds for deficit reduction.”

“Sustainable Recreation”: USDA /Forest Service Bites the Hand that Feeds Them?

May 13, 2013 by Sharon

First, let’s go back to the Mike Dombeck quote I cited previously from this article in Forest History:

The most enduring and powerful maxim of business is that “money flows to things people want.” People want their cultural heritage protected, clean air and water, healthy forests and rangelands, good hunting and fishing, sustainable supplies of timber and forage, etc.

Actually, Mike’s only listing of recreation was hunting and fishing on this list, but recreation is clearly the #1 use of the national forests by people of the U.S. (and other countries).

Friday, I reviewed the history of the sustainability concept in various planning rules. In the 2012, a new concept hit the street. This is “sustainable recreation”. I know all of you who are specific and careful about words are wondering “what’s up with that?” doesn’t everything have to be sustainable? Why single out recreation to be called “sustainable recreation” every time?

Well, it’s not really clear but I guess it’s because there is an internal strategy/framework about “sustainable recreation.” Here is a link to a document about the strategy from 2010. The strategy is an easy read, and makes a great deal of sense. I thought it was well done, even though I’m not usually a fan of “strategies.” I didn’t find anything particularly novel, although I’d be interested in what readers of this blog think.

However, I wonder about the “sustainability” (ink, paper, electrons) of adding an extra word (sustainable) every time you write about one of the multiple uses in a regulation when it’s already required to be sustainable.

So let’s see how it is talked about in the 2012 Rule.

The final rule provides direction for sustainable recreation throughout the planning process. The final rule retains the term ‘‘sustainable recreation’’ to recognize that planning should identify, evaluate, and provide a set of recreational settings, opportunities and access for a range of uses, recognizing the need for that set to be sustainable over time.

Again, everything has to be sustainable so…??

Ah so now we encounter the Directives, let’s look at BRC’s comments:

E. The draft Handbook at 23.22b – “Sustainable Recreation Resources” and “Opportunities to Connect People with Nature” Does Not Properly Track the Rule
The draft Handbook inappropriately modifies the definition of Sustainable Recreation. Again, the Handbook contradicts the Rule, and whether intentionally or otherwise sets up the agency to fail the newly-configured duty to provide “sustainable recreation.” The Rule states: Sustainable recreation. The set of recreation settings and opportunities on the National Forest System that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable for present and future generations.
(36 CFR 219.19)
The draft Handbook modifies this definition here:
Plan components must provide for sustainable recreational settings, opportunities, and access. Sustainable recreation opportunities and settings are those that are economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable for the future. To be sustainable, the set of recreational settings and opportunities must be within the fiscal capability of the planning unit, be designed to address potential user conflicts among recreationists, and be compatible with other plan components including those components that provide for ecological sustainability.
(Chapter 20 at 23.22b Page 80 underline emphasis added) I
Ironically, the Rule’s definition of “sustainable” recreation troubled agency recreation staff, who proposed changes to the definition that they feared would “set the bar too high.” See email correspondence dated Oct. 13, 2011 (AR 0125036-0125039). The draft Handbook not only ignores but builds on these fears, again with the effect of creating an unnecessarily high burden.
Most, if not all, USFS Programs are not adequately funded. Indeed, the shortfall in the roads maintenance budget, and the trail maintenance backlog for trails in designated Wilderness, is well documented. The language here raises the concern that the agency may attempt to rely on lack of funding as an excuse for lack of effort and creativity in comprehensive recreational planning and motorized recreational travel planning specifically.

That’s the BRC point of view.. my point of view is … let’s call things as they are and not redefine commonly used expressions like sustainable, (or restoration, for that matter) to mean something different. It seems like you are trying to put something over on the public rather than clarifying your intentions and being transparent.

If the FS means ” there’s a great many multiple uses, but only recreation will be subject to the “fiscal capacity” test. I wouldn’t call that “sustainable” because it doesn’t have the same meaning as other uses of the term. I would call it “fiscally prudent” recreation approach. Other proposed terms are welcome in the comments. In English, are they thinking:

We fully recognize that recreation is the most popular to the citizens of the US who provide this funding. We also value our partnerships, volunteers and other ways (outlined in the Sustainable Recreation Framework).
But we are holding recreation to a higher standard than any other use, because ______.

I’m trying to understand how they would fill in the blank.

It seems to send a message “we’re not so sure we want you recreationists out there, despite all the partnerships and volunteering” which could ultimately be a funding death spiral. Not enough money, we’ll kick you out, you won’t want to fund the FS, therefore fewer people and shoddier facilities, so more will be kicked out..

As Mike Dombeck said above, “money flows to things people want.”

Or perhaps recreationists aren’t organized enough across the motorized and non-motorized spectra to resist, as oil and gas, timber or ranching might be, so they are an easy target for integrity- promotion? Or maybe it just sounded like a good idea to someone and was stuck in the directives randomly?

Maybe someone can shed some light on this.

Wolverine – Case Study in ESA

May 11, 2013 by Sharon

The USFWS takes another step toward finalizing a wolverine recovery effort. Photo courtesy USFWS/Steve Kroschel.

Maybe we could follow this story and learn about the ins and outs of ESA as this goes through the process. When I worked for the FS, we had experts so I didn’t really need to understand all the ins and outs (I was involved with the S Rockies lynx amendment, but more in terms of trying to move it along procedurally). Bob Berwyn posted this on his blog here. It’s interesting that states currently with wolverines don’t seem to be as enthused as Colorado, which currently does not have them. Correlation or causation?

Here’s an excerpt from Bob’s story:

Just in the past few weeks, the state agency rekindled those talks to update stakeholders on the federal listing process, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesman Randy Hampton.
“We’re trying give everybody an understanding of how some of the things that are proposed would work … The way they’re doing it is kind of new,” Hampton said, referring to the proposed simultaneous listing and nonessential population proposal.
“Overall it was a productive meeting. There were concerns that came up, many related to lynx and the history of that,” he said.
The lynx listing resulted in more stringent reviews for certain types of projects on national forest lands, including logging, ski area operations and expansions, and other recreational uses.
Colorado won’t consider a wolverine reintroduction program until the federal listing is finalized. Then, the State Legislature would have have to give its approval, but Hampton said that state biologists are keen to explore the idea.
“There’s still a great deal of interest in this … Maybe to temper that, there’s biological excitement. There aren’t that many species that you can look at and say, they’re native, were extirpated, and there is general agreement that bringing them back would be a good thing,” he said.

Here’s my question: they aren’t here in Colorado. We bring them in (reintroduction) and then we have yet another creature to analyze on each federal proposal, and it seems that we need to analyze even when they are nowhere around because it could become habitat for them were their populations to grow (is this true?).

Would it be a “good thing”? Based on the same logic (native and extirpated) we would be reintroducing grizzlies to California.. I don’t know.. what is “biological excitement”? People get “biologically excited” for a variety of reasons, not all of which can be discussed on a family blog, but are not usually set into public policy…

I’m interested in a) whose opinion rules at the end of the day as this process goes forward (biologists who work for CDOW? USFWS?)
b) how and when the scientific information gets arrayed and how it is structured for the public to comment on the scientific information and its use.

In the case of the wolverine, the USFWS posits that snowmobiling, backcountry skiing, and land management activities like timber harvest and infrastructure development, don’t pose a serious threat, but nongovernmental conservation groups counter that there’s not enough good science to draw that conclusion. Intentional killing of wolverines would be banned in any case.

Did we move somehow from scientific information about impacts to needing to prove that there are no impacts..isn’t it impossible to prove a negative?

c) what happened with lynx.. at first it sounded like there was a deal with ski areas to support it, now every ski proposal needs to be examined for its impacts on lynx and I believe there’s been litigation that cited lynx.. how does that all work? Was there really a deal? How did it hold up?

d) How about people on private lands.. do they have the same restrictions as public lands?

e) If wolverine is up north and having trouble, is a choice to be more careful up north to protect it instead of moving it somewhere it isn’t? Which under climate change may get less hospitable for the species anyway? Is that a good use of public biologist time and federal planning and analysis funding?

Doc Hastings Chairs New ESA Working Group

May 10, 2013 by Bob Zybach

This following Press Release just came out of the Committee for Natural Resources. According to the ESA Working Group’s new website (http://naturalresources.house.gov/esaworkinggroup/), which distributed the release:

Through a series of events, forums and hearings, the Working Group will invite open and honest discussion and seek answers to the following questions:

How is ESA success defined?
How do we measure ESA progress?
Is the ESA working to achieve its goals?
Is species recovery effectively prioritized and efficient?
Does the ESA ensure the compatibility of property and water rights and species protection?
Is the ESA transparent, and are decisions open to public engagement and input?
Is litigation driving the ESA? Is litigation helpful in meeting ESA goals?
What is the role of state and local government and landowners in recovering species?
Are changes to the ESA necessary?
############

Can anyone think of anything that should maybe be added or refined on this list? I have already requested that the entire process conducted transparently, in full view of the public. It strikes me that this blog might be an ideal forum for such an approach.

Here is the Press Release (my Congressperson isn’t on it, either):

Members Launch Endangered Species Act Working Group

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 9, 2013 – Members of the House of Representatives, representing a broad geographic range, today announced the creation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Working Group. This Working Group, led by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings and Western Caucus Co-Chair Cynthia Lummis, will examine the ESA from many angles. Throughout this year, the Working Group will hold a series of events, forums, and hearings that will invite discussion and input on ways in which the ESA (last reauthorized in 1988) may be working well, how it could be updated, and how to boost its effectiveness for both people and species.

Last Congress, the Natural Resources Committee held a series of hearings examining the impact of ESA-related litigation and settlement agreements. The Committee found that hundreds of ESA lawsuits have been filed over the past five years and that tens of millions of dollars have been awarded in taxpayer funded attorneys’ fees. This takes time and resources away from real species recovery efforts. In addition, the Administration will be making listing decisions on nearly 800 species by 2016, including 160 this year, as a result of settlement agreements negotiated behind closed doors.

The Working Group will continue to examine the impacts of litigation along with a number of other specific topics and questions including: how to measure ESA progress; how to define success; if the ESA is working to achieve its goals; the role of state and local governments in recovering species; whether the ESA conserves species while ensuring property and water rights protection; the need for public engagement and input; and more.

Members of the ESA Working Group include:
Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Cynthia Lummis (WY – At large)
Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Doug Collins (GA-09)
Andy Harris (MD-01)
Bill Huizenga (MI-02)
James Lankford (OK-05)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Steve Southerland (FL-02)
Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (PA-05)
David Valadao (CA-21)

“The Endangered Species Act Working Group is an opportunity to build upon the Committee’s work last year and have a fair, honest conversation and review of the current law. We’ve brought together Members from all parts of the country in order to get a broad range of input and perspectives. We want to hear from states, local community leaders, farmers, ranchers, environmental groups, property owners, and businesses – everyone who cares and has an opinion – about how the law impacts their lives and how it might be improved. I believe we all support the goal of wanting to preserve, protect, and recover key domestic species. 40 years after it was signed into law, and 25 years since it was last renewed by Congress, I hope there can also be recognition that they are ways this law can be improved and made to work better for both people and species.” – Chairman Doc Hastings

“This is an opportunity for Members from across the country to collaborate on creating a more effective conservation tool for our nation’s diverse wildlife. The ESA has long been a topic of great interest to the West, but as Western Caucus Co-Chair, I believe that Westerners must do a better job of reaching out to our Eastern colleagues on this topic in a way that builds trust, not division. The ESA can work, but it is far from perfect. In fact, in some ways the law hinders the kind of conservation of species that we all desire. This Working Group will leave no stone unturned for good ideas on improving the ESA for people and species. I am particularly interested in the ideas coming from our nation’s policy laboratories – the states. In the end, I am hopeful the Working Group will provide a strong base of education and opens a discussion on the ESA that is free of rancor.” – Rep. Cynthia Lummis

“During a time when Nevada at the local, state, and federal levels is so heavily focused on preventing the listing of the sage grouse as endangered, I am grateful House Leadership selected me to participate in the ESA Working Group along with Members from across the country. It is my hope this forum will help enable me to further convey the negative impact the looming sage grouse listing would have on Nevada and the West, as well as to identify tools to prevent it.” – Rep. Mark Amodei

“I look forward to working with all those interested in improving the way we recover and ultimately de-list species from the ‘endangered’ status. Key to these efforts will be the states, advocacy groups, federal wildlife managers, and public land users. Much work is ahead, but the goals of improving wildlife and range health are essential to the future vitality of our open public spaces.” – Rep. Rob Bishop

“There is a very real need to update the ESA so that we can actually help endangered species recover. The ESA should be a straightforward tool to engage public and private entities to work together towards protection and recovery of species. I am proud to join my colleagues on the ESA Working Group to bring common sense solutions that benefits animals as well as humans.” – Rep. Doug Collins

“This Working Group will listen to diverse concerns with the goal of improving the way we govern programs that help recover vulnerable species. The current system is clogged with lawsuits, and as a physician, I understand that courtrooms rarely provide the best diagnosis.” – Rep. Andy Harris

“I look forward to contributing to the Endangered Species Working Group during the 113th Congress. It is extremely important to represent the abundance of natural resources in Michigan; from the shorelines of our Great Lakes, to our many farms and forests, the Endangered Species Act impacts a variety of aspects of our state. This year marks the 40th year since the ESA was enacted. I am excited to be a part of this group of legislators examining the effectiveness of the ESA and to improve the Act for both the public, and endangered species.” – Rep. Bill Huizenga

“I am glad to have an opportunity to address the broken and ineffective Endangered Species Act with my colleagues on the Working Group. Oklahomans who are passionate about protecting endangered species might be interested to know that our current federal structure is ineffective and outdated. We should be good stewards of the planet God gave us and its inhabitants. But federal laws protecting dwindling animal populations should be crafted to actually address the problems they intend to solve. Current law, including the ESA, is outdated and does more to protect paperwork than animals.” – Rep. James Lankford

“This Working Group aims to propose thoughtful reforms to the Endangered Species Act, which over the last few decades has had many unintended consequences that have impacted our citizens and communities. I am honored to be a part of this group and eager to utilize my experience with Mississippi and Missouri River issues to represent the state and the entire Midwest in this capacity.” – Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer

“I’m honored to be a part of this ESA Working Group. Wildlife conservation issues can have a significant impact on West Texans, and smart conservation strategies are critical to our farmers, ranchers, and energy producers. The Working Group will be an excellent platform to coordinate the efforts of all stakeholders involved so that we can protect the livelihoods of individuals while maintaining healthy wildlife populations.” – Rep. Randy Neugebauer

“Protecting endangered species and promoting jobs and economic growth need not be mutually exclusive. Through collaboration, I believe we can produce a more effective Endangered Species Act. That’s why I’m pleased to be part of a working group that is welcoming the input and real life perspectives of a diverse range of stakeholders, including not just animal protection advocates and conservation groups, but also the communities, small businesses, and coastal, agricultural and forestry interests that are impacted by the ESA.” – Rep. Steve Southerland

“The Endangered Species Act was intended as a collaborative partnership between the states and our federal government to protect and sustain our biological resources. This review process is designed so that lawmakers can hear from all stakeholders, which will help to identify the law’s effectiveness in terms of species protection and ecosystem restoration, and to determine its failures and categorize which reforms should guide the policy making process moving forward.” – Rep. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson

“California has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world, yet the Endangered Species Act is preventing people in my district from getting enough water to meet their agricultural and everyday needs. Both sides of the aisle must come together to find common-sense solutions that meet the needs of the people so deeply affected by these policies. I am excited to join my colleagues as we work together to find common ground and do what’s best for our constituents.” – Rep. David Valadao

For more information on the ESA Working Group, visit http://naturalresources.house.gov/ESAworkinggroup

###

Printable PDF of this document

Contact: Jill Strait 202-226-9019

The Incredible World of Sustainability Definitions in Planning Rules

May 10, 2013 by Sharon

I want to talk about “Sustainable Recreation” in the planning directives. But first we need to lay the groundwork, so we need to go back to the Rule. Clearly everything has to be (plans must promote) sustainable, as in every rule since the 2000.

Sustainability is defined in the 2012 Rule as:

Sustainability. The capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. For purposes of this part, ‘‘ecological sustainability’’ refers to the capability of ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity; ‘‘economic sustainability’’ refers to the capability of society to produce and consume or otherwise benefit from goods and services including contributions to jobs and market and nonmarket benefits; and ‘‘social sustainability’’ refers to the capability of society to support the network of relationships, traditions, culture, and activities that connect people to the land and to one another, and support vibrant communities.

One might wonder.. gosh, the concept of sustainability has been around for a long time (since the Brundtland report).. how did EI get into the definition?

So you might ask, how did they define ecological sustainability in 2005?

(b) Sustaining ecological systems. The overall goal of the ecological element of sustainability is to provide a framework to contribute to sustaining native ecological systems by providing ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant and animal species in the plan area. This will satisfy the statutory requirement to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).

So we went from diversity of native plants and animals, to “its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity).” I have called it “everything” before, because I can’t think of anything that isn’t covered, being within NRV AND resilient.

I use the ticks standard.. could lawyers argue that a project changes the compositions of species of ticks on elk (or the genetic composition of species of ticks on elk, or viruses..) ? And we see “no” in 2005, and yes in 2012. Because ticks are not plants or animals.

But in 2012, you would have to know what the species composition was during the reference period. Except like so many things, you never could know. Maybe we need historic tick ecologists and modelers? You may say, that’s silly. But it’s composition, which is listed as a “dominant ecological characteristic.”

So what does the 2000 Rule say (remember the COS gave input on that rule, and thus the Sedjo discussion and point of view, we described previously here)?

So I looked at 2000

Similarly, the Forest Service and scientific community have developed the concepts of ecosystem management and adaptive management. Scientific advances and improved ecological understanding support an approach under which forests and rasslands are managed as ecosystems rather than focusing solely on single species or commodity output. Indeed, ecosystem management places greater emphasis on assessing and managing broad landscapes and sustaining ecological processes. Ecosystem management
focuses on the cumulative effects of activities over time and over larger parts of the landscape. Planning and management under ecosystem management also acknowledge the dynamic nature of ecological systems, the significance of natural processes, and the uncertainty and inherent variability of natural systems.
Ecosystem management calls for more effective monitoring of management actions and their effects to facilitate adaptive management, which encourages changes in management emphasis and direction as new, scientific information is developed. In accord with ecosystem management, regional ecosystem assessments have become the foundation for more comprehensive planning, sometimes involving multiple forests and other public land management units. The Northwest Forest Plan, for example, affects 17 national forests and 6 BLM districts in a three-state region. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project encompasses 25 percent of the entire National Forest System and ten percent of the public lands administered by the BLM nationwide.

(As an aside, our appetite for these giant projects seems to have dissipated in the last 13 years. Does this have to do with the apparent lack of capacity to do any adaptation? Why is that? Would like to hear opinions of folks experiences with NW Forest Plan and ICBEP).

And what was ecological sustainability then?

Ecological sustainability: The maintenance or restoration of the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems including the diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity of ecological systems.

Hmm.
2001
Maintenance OR restoration of composition, structure and processes.

2012
Capability of ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity

Which is, again:
The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.”

So if we use my ticks example, under the 2000 Rule, we would be able to argue that our project was not changing (maintaining) the same tick species as on the current elk.

According to 2012, though, we would have to figure out what the reference period was and see if our project “promoted” the species composition which occurred during the “reference period.” Unless I’m missing something?

What on Earth have we gotten ourselves into?

For those who claim that this is all “science” take a gander at SY_CallicottMumford1997paper (which you can get for free through this link, but not from Wiley..)

Ideas that scientists and philosophers exchange about the world and how things should be are not “science” in the sense of hypotheses that can be verified. This paper also brings up another normative science idea, health, but lends an interesting view of how the different disciplines see what’s important (I’ll give you a hint, it’s what they spend their time studying ;))

I tried to copy out the salient paragraphs but it doesn’t let me, nor could I extract the page. Check out the left hand column on page 37. Note that this discussion is clearly normative, and argues that “ecosystem health” is good for managed landscapes(sustainable) and “ecosystem integrity” for preserves. Just to be clear, I think it’s fine for academic philosophers and scientists of all stripes to talk about concepts…but putting vague normative science ones into regulation is quite questionable. Indeed, then stating that it is “science” to value the “reference period” is pretty clearly.. well.. not “science”, despite the fact that some scientists espouse it.

Potential for Collapse of Forest Ecosystems

May 9, 2013 by Sharon

A guest post from Kevin Matthews:

A substantial body of science shows a general pattern, that when the ecological integrity of a natural ecosystem is degraded, its response curve is non-linear. The state that occurs when the response curve becomes non-linear, such that small additional impacts result in large losses of ecosystem integrity, is sometimes referred to as ecosystem collapse.
One of the scientific bases for why ecosystem collapse tends to catch humans by surprise is pretty interesting with regard to the O&C checkerboard forest lands of western Oregon.
Natural ecosystems tend to be very resilient, accommodating heavy damage and still recovering, up to typically somewhere between 50% and 90% damage. This lulls humans into complacency, to the sense that they can keep taking, and the ecosystem will keep recovering.
Then, somewhere in the range of substantial alteration of from 50% and 90% of habitat area, ecosystem resiliency breaks down. A threshold gets crossed, where things fall apart fast and hard. And in a relatively short time frame, the habitat is changed (loss of soil, hydrology, key species, whatever) so the ecosystem no longer has a viable path to recovery.
The point of collapse is hard to predict because the system responses go rapidly non-linear. Past rates of recovery, however well-researched, become almost instantly irrelevant.
A rough, understated estimate would be that the overall O&C checkerboard is already at 75-80% substantial impact, based on close to 100% impact to the industrial part, and optimistically 60% impact to the BLM part. (Looking just at old growth remnants, 90% or more impacted would be defensible.)
Add in the ongoing impacts due to climate change, and there’s a strong basis to believe the checkerboard forests are hanging on the edge of serious collapse.
Interestingly, much same thing is true for ecosystems overall, viewed at the global scale:
http://arch.designcommunity.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=37314
Habitats incorporating giant trees were endemic across the well-watered areas of what is now the U.S., from the Appalachians to the Great Plains, from the Carolinas to Maine to Minnesota. After a few centuries of western expansion, all that remains of those great tree forests is a thin fringe along the western edge of the continent. And this thin fringe is critically endangered.
Time to change our ways.
If we were ecologically realistic, given the heavy impacts on western Oregon forests to date, in order to avoid collapse we might want to plan for significant disturbance to not more than 25% of the checkerboard lands, and that, only in lands heavily disturbed already.
Key questions then would be, how could we make a sustainable level of harvest, contained by that threshold, work for the economics of rural communities? Could we continue needed building construction with the resulting output of sawlogs? Could we maintain a timber culture that we would all be proud of?
Recent calls by Senators and other politicians to increase logging, without addressing these broader and deeper issues, are fundamentally misinformed.
http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2883
I’d like to see all sides work together in seeking a true balance, based on clear evidence, for forest policy in this new century.

Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- IV- After the “AND”

May 9, 2013 by Sharon

Fortunately for everyone this will be my last post on the concept of “Ecological Integrity”as described in the NFMA Rule. Perhaps unfortunately, not my last post on the planning directives. Other guest posts on the directives are welcome. Wading through the directives was a lonely business, and thanks much to the others on this blog who suffered and shared.

So let’s return to the definition in the regulation of “ecological integrity”:

“The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.”

We have discussed the first part in previous posts, here, here and here… now let’s look at after the “and”:
“can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.”

Well, that sounds like a good idea. But what “can withstand and recover”? It appears to be the “dominant ecological characteristics” composition, structure and function, species composition and diversity”. That sounds like “everything you can possibly think of.” So everything would have to go back to being the same as it was prior to “most” perturbations. And how is that?

Natural range of variation (NRV). Spatial and temporal variation in ecosystem characteristics under historic disturbance regimes during a reference period. The reference period considered should be sufficiently long to include the full range of variation produced by dominant natural disturbance regimes, often several centuries, for such disturbances as fire and flooding and should also include short-term variation and cycles in climate. “Natural range of variation” (NRV) is a term used synonymously with historic range of variation or range of natural variation. The NRV is a tool for assessing ecological integrity, and does not necessarily constitute a management target or desired condition. The NRV can help identify key structural, functional, compositional, and connectivity characteristics, for which plan components may be important for either maintenance or restoration of such ecological conditions.

But how do we know if something (er.. everything) will “withstand and recover from “most” perturbations?” Who gets to decide what “most” is?

While I thought that the 2000 rule was a full employment program for fire ecologists and historic vegetation ecologists.. this sounds like a full employment program for lawyers and modelers, as well as the fire ecologists and historic vegetation ecologists. I wonder who was sitting around the table or on the phone when this rule was developed, and if there is some correlation between the disciplines of those folks and the disciplines advantaged by this language ;)?

If we agree that climate change is unprecedented, then with climate change, the past cannot be a predictor of the future.. so we don’t really have any information, not do we have any predictive capability other than modeling. Of course, our climate models are not particularly accurate at the scales we are interested in, and humans are constantly not doing what we assumed they would do when we ran the scenarios in the models.

But for me, all this is a distraction from dealing with real environmental problems of today (dirt in streams, invasive species) and acknowledging that time’s arrow only goes one way. Yet this rule and its directives have us spending time digging up the past (sorry, Bob) and modeling the unmodelable. We simply have no clue about the future at the detail required in this rule.

Before climate change, we used to hear a lot the paraphrase of Haldane “ecosystems are more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think,” with the sense that we needed to preserve species. Which is fine. But if in fact they are that complex, then what are we doing depending on models over observations today in a regulation?

It’s clear that it is not really about “science”. I like to go back to Michael O’Connell’s warning of 1999 in his testimony here (my italics).

Ecosystems are more complex than we think. There are many complexities at all levels of biological organization that cannot be measured, perceived, or even conceived of, that directly affect the viability of conservation solutions. Science can never provide all the answers to questions about conservation, so the response should be to exercise both caution and prudence when designing answers. Wise solutions don’t necessarily try to compensate for factors that cannot be defined, but at the same time they leave room for them. A good example of this is true adaptive management, where the results of ongoing monitoring are used to adjust the conservation program based on new information and changes in circumstance.
Nature is full of surprises. Ecological systems are characterized by non-linear, non-equilibrium and often seemingly random dynamics. Both unexpected events and unanticipated consequences affect the long term viability of any conservation solution. This uncertainty is a given, and its runs directly counter to the political, social and economic desire for predictability in the outcome of conservation plans. It is better to be forthright in acknowledging that the issue of “no surprises” is not a scientific question of predicting the future, but instead a social question of how to deal with those surprises.
Conservation planning is interdisciplinary, but science is the foundation. Creating a long-term solution for species and the ecosystems on which they depend is a complicated exercise in reconciling social, political, legal, economic and biological factors. But if science must be one of several competing interests in the negotiation instead of the method of evaluating how to reach specified objectives, then conservation outcomes will always be undermined. This raises the critical issue of how to integrate both scientific information and scientists themselves into the planning process.

So let’s take a real world example.. say a ski area. Does having an area suitable for skiing “promote ecological integrity” ? Well, a ski area would be outside the RNV, so that’s out, so we don’t have to go to perturbation. So are we expecting that the next White River Plan revision will be litigated for having ski area suitability and thereby not promoting integrity?

So let’s move on to resilience.. say the climate is warming and drying. You want to thin some ponderosa pine trees so they have enough water to stay healthy and do some fuel reduction. A lower basal area (than in the past historical period you picked for NRV) would be better in terms of resilience to “perturbations” . But as far as the historians tell you, that is not in NRV. So the two requirements for “ecological integrity”, NRV and resilience, could actually be in conflict. (aside: picking a reference period can’t really be “scientific” so this idea of NRV seems like “science” but isn’t really). As in you can have one or the other, but not both.

My question is “are we way overthinking this?” WTH is this doing in a regulation and thereafter in the court system?

Here’s what Mike Dombeck said: just plain English and inspiring. Have we changed so much since he said this? Here’s the link, the whole thing is worth a read.

My expectation is that everything we do—every environmental impact statement we write, every timber sale, recreation plan, mining plan, or allotment management plan we approve—will not compromise the health of the land. I want to make it very clear that no Forest Service program has dominance over another. Timber is not more important than wildlife and fisheries. Nor is wildlife and fisheries more important than timber or recreation, or cultural resources, and so on.

So what happened between Mike’s term and now? Have we really changed this intention (no one is more important than the other), or are we so wrapped around the axle of fuzzy words that we can’t even tell what we mean? Are we adrift in a sea of legal hooks?

Congress Considers Sealaska Bill: An Alaska Big-Tree Old Growth Transfer to Private Corporation

May 8, 2013 by Matthew Koehler

Increasingly rare volume class 7 old growth on the Tongass National Forest. Note that cedar species can be 1,000+ years old. Photo by Alaska Audubon.

The following introduction was written by Greg Petrich with the Alaska Chapter, North American Bear Foundation. After the intro is a guest column written by Don Cornelius and Jack Gustafson. Mr. Cornelius and Mr. Gustafson are former Area Biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division; with a combined experience of over 32 years reviewing Tongass National Forest, and private Native corporation logging issues. – mk

—————–

Senate bill S.340 (currently pending in Senate Natural Resources Committee) would transfer premium cherry picked Tongass National Forest lands to the private for-profit Sealaska Native corporation – violating a previous settled contract with the US government to select final land claims inside non-controversial agreed upon boundaries. A product of political influence it has become one of the most controversial issues ever to hit Southeast Alaska.

Two of the regions most respected and well known habitat professionals: Don Cornelius, and Jack Gustafson examine this bill’s potential impact on a globally rare and threatened resource – the tiny fraction of the land that holds the massive “giant trees” of the Tongass. – Greg Petrich, Alaska Chapter, North American Bear Foundation.

Congress Considers S.340. An Alaska Big-Tree Old Growth Transfer to Private Corporation
By Don Cornelius and Jack Gustafson

Legislation sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) would transfer approximately 70,000 acres of public land in scattered locations across Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to the Sealaska Corporation, primarily for extensive industrial scale clearcut logging other commercial development.

The bottom line on S.340 is:
A) It is completely unnecessary; and
B) It is a very poor environmental trade off of lands and resources, and not in the public interest.
C) It sets a precedent, and an inequity, in the transfer of lands outside the public review process, potentially opening new claims by Native corporations across the state.

The proposed legislation (S. 340) would enable the Sealaska Corporation, to reopen and rewrite basic terms of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971) in order to make alternative land selections in the Tongass, including some of the region’s most valuable large-tree old growth. Under current law, the Sealaska Corporation has already made its final land selections but is now seeking legislation to renege on their original ‘requested’ deal to obtain more commercially valuable Tongass public lands.

Sealaska’s controversial proposal has attracted opposition from small towns scattered throughout the southeast Alaska panhandle region as well as a diverse assortment of sportsmen and conservation groups concerned about habitat impacts. Several of the publicly owned areas now being sought for logging by the Sealaska Corporation have exceptional ecological value identified as conservation priorities through a comprehensive Tongass-wide habitat assessment process by The Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska.

A letter jointly submitted about the bill from The Wildlife Society, The Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wildlife Forever, Safari Club International and more than a dozen other sports groups describes the legislation as “fundamentally flawed” and asks that the bill not advance further. Trout Unlimited also opposes the legislation for not adequately protecting high-value salmon producing watersheds that would be transferred out of the national forest to be logged by Sealaska.

The Tongass National Forest contains a significant portion of the earth’s last remaining significantly-sized tracts of this forest type. Large-tree old growth stands have always been scarce as well as long-targeted by loggers since the first days of commercial logging. Today, they constitute a very small fraction of the overall landscape. Size class 6 and 7 combined represent 3.4% of the land area. Size class 7 alone, which include stands with up to 200,000 board feet per acre (think of trees 10-12+ feet in girth and worth a quarter million dollars per acre) today occur on just half a percent of the land base.

Past Tongass operations have been exceedingly hard on these unique and rare large-tree stands. These very special stands are far more than just visually impressive, evolved over a millennium, they constitute the richest and most valuable wildlife habitat on the Tongass.

The public lands that would be transferred to Sealaska under S. 340 include some of the region’s most biologically productive areas. The bill would enable the corporation to “high-grade” ― i.e., disproportionately target and clearcut extremely rare, big-tree old growth. Recent analysis of S. 340 shows that Sealaska is selecting large-tree old growth stands (combined volume class 6/7) at 10 times the rate they occur naturally in the Tongass (30% vs 3.4%). [1] Even the young-growth (previously logged) forest that Sealaska is also selecting targets the most productive lands.

The Sealaska legislation would high-grade increasingly rare, large-tree old growth and amplify this long-recognized problem. Congress explicitly identified the high-grading concern in 1990 as part of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) and enacted an explicit ban on the practice. [2] An independent scientific peer review of Tongass forest management practices in 1997 further highlighted the interconnected problems of high-grading, forest fragmentation, and loss of habitat connectivity. [3] In its most recent testimony to Congress on S. 340 the Department of the Interior testified that if the Sealaska legislation is enacted as proposed the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may have to review its previous findings not to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf under the Endangered Species Act.

Because Sealaska has already made its final Settlement Act land selections under existing law and has officially filed those selections with the federal Bureau of Land Management, no further action is required by Congress for the corporation to receive its full entitlement.

S. 340 is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, chaired by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). We would encourage you to contact the Full Committee and ask for no further action on this bill.

Mr. Cornelius and Mr. Gustafson are former Area Biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division; with a combined experience of over 32 years reviewing Tongass National Forest, and private Native corporation logging issues.

———————–

[1] Kirchoff, S. 340 Tongass National Forest Comparison, February 2013 (Click Here ) http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/4/8/3289499/S340_TNF_Comparison_Feb2013.xlsx
[2] H.R. 987: Tongass Timber Reform Act, Section 301(c)(2)
[3] Powell, et al., “Joint Statement of Members of the Peer Review Committee Concerning the Inadequacy of Conservation Measures for Vertebrate Species in the Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan of Record,” (September 1997).