Emily Schembra, a student at University of Montana, who is studying forest planning with Martin Nie, an originator of this blog, was looking for any papers or information around the cost of NFMA planning.
Here’s her note:
“looking for information on costs associated with forest planning (or implementation of the forest plan). So far, I have a 1986 GAO report on the Boise/Clearwater National Forests and a 1994 GAO report on USFS efforts to achieve cost efficiency, and other less specific academic articles, but not much else that focuses specifically on costs. ”
It reminded me of the famous Fred Norbury quote “How can we say planning takes too long and costs too much if we don’t know how long it takes or how much it costs?”
Looking into the Mallard-Larkins Roadless Area on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. Photo by Brett Haverstick.
Recently, the discussion of collaboration and forest planning – at least on this blog – has focused on the processes at play with the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest forest plan revision. See here, here and here. The discussion and debate continues, as we can clearly see in these point/counter-point guest columns, which recently ran in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. The first one is from Lee Rozen, who wrote his piece on behalf of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News editorial board. The second piece is from Gary Macfarlane, ecosystem defense director for Friends of the Clearwater.
We have this Friend, see, who’s stumped us
By Lee Rozen, for the Moscow-Pullman Daily News editorial board
http://dnews.com/opinion/article_245cf435-b50e-58a3-a9e4-98e2b09b816a.html
Sometimes, you have to wonder whether the Friends of the Clearwater can see the national forest for the trees. Generally speaking, we agree with much of what the Friends, and groups like them, stand for. We are skeptical whenever industry or local government tells us to just trust them because they are acting in our best interest.
But when government in the form of the U.S. Forest Service comes forward and seeks the informed advice of a wide variety of groups – both industry and Friends included – we don’t see sinister conspiracies lurking behind the next stump. Challenges, perhaps, but not conspiracies.
The Forest Service is trying a “collaborative” process to develop a management plan for the newly combined administration of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. That’s instead of proposing a plan and offering it up for industry, governments, recreationists and environmentalists to take potshots at, and eventually go to court over.
It seems that’s what Friends of the Clearwater want them to do. The Friends seem to be afraid their principles will be co-opted if they sit down across the table from industry, government, hunters, motorcyclists and ski-mobilers and negotiate the best way to reach an acceptable compromise on the use of this forest. More practically, they argue that industry and government can pay to have their representatives at the discussions but groups of volunteers with day jobs can neither afford the time off nor the travel expenses. As a result, the Forest Service has offered to help the collaboration occur online.
A plan for running a national forest poses a complex problem because it is so unclear what national forests are and what they should be. It’s pretty clear what’s intended for national parks, wilderness areas and national recreational areas. But national forests are different. They are supposed to support a mix of goals, many of which can be contradictory – logging and recreation, for instance. The Friends of the Clearwater, and other interest groups, should be working to make the “collaborative process” work for all, rather trying to shoot it down in hopes of “total victory” in the courts.
US Forest Service must follow the law
By Gary Macfarlane
http://dnews.com/opinion/article_1207ba0f-0a26-5e2d-a44f-ac89653a0672.html
Lee Rozen’s criticism of Friends of the Clearwater (Our View, written for the editorial board, March 13) is off base, misinformed and reflects a lack of understanding concerning our public land laws and the public involvement process. Had he contacted us, he would have learned why we believe the Forest Service is not following the law. It appears the agency has stumbled into a quagmire, under the guise of collaboration, with its new forest planning process.
The process the Forest Service is currently following on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests plan revision circumvents existing law, creates a contradictory and confusing public involvement process and lacks accountability. For 40 years, the National Environmental Policy Act has governed public input and analysis of agency proposals. NEPA mandates that the first step of the public involvement process is to identify pertinent issues. However, this collaborative process is seeking to resolve issues before the genuine public involvement process even begins. How can the Forest Service resolve issues before they are properly identified?
Under NEPA, all citizens can participate equally. However, the new collaborative forest plan revision process – which has no statutory authority – creates two unequal classes of citizens. The E-collaborative invention funnels citizen comments from the second class through the first class citizen collaborative group. Why should a special working group have more input and be allowed to determine whether or how other citizen comments are used?
Furthermore, NEPA requires an objective analysis of alternatives before decisions are made. Thus, the integrity of NEPA is compromised when the agency reaches a deal or understanding with the collaborative forest planning group before the NEPA process even begins. NEPA must be more than a pro forma exercise. Can you imagine having a collaborative group decide the outcome of an election before the election begins in order to avoid the contentiousness of elections?
Another stated reason behind the new forest planning process is to save time and money. How is having two competing public involvement processes for national forest planning more efficient? Indeed, the Forest Service recently admitted the collaborative process would take longer than anticipated. We feel that such redundancy wastes time and money and also creates conflict and confusion. In fact, a member of the forest planning collaborative for the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests – Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League – recently termed the process as collective collaborative confusion at a presentation given in Eugene, Ore. Even proponents of collaboration find the new process fatally flawed.
Retired Forest Service fishery biologist and Moscow resident Al Espinosa stated in a comment letter on the new process, “The intent here is to avoid accountability by eliminating the appeal process and providing a phony pathway around the regulations and laws.”
He also noted the new planning process would circumvent the national interest. Removing accountability and de-legitimizing NEPA’s public involvement and decision-making process is not in the public interest. The Forest Service could have prevented scrutiny, confusion and distrust had the agency followed citizen suggestions made in an October meeting in how to lawfully proceed with the forest plan revision process.
If national forest management is to be determined by local collaborative groups, then existing laws like NEPA need to be repealed first. If the goal is to remove the ability of citizens to have judicial redress and to challenge agency decisions in court, then the Constitution must be amended. The new process for national forest planning clashes with the law. Friends of the Clearwater simply believes the Forest Service should be accountable to U.S. citizens and the law. We think the majority of Americans would agree with us.
Here’s a link to an article by High Country News intern..Sarah Jane Keller.good article!
A couple of interesting perspectives
This desire to drive to the Oregon woods or coast to sleep on comfy beds in Mongolian-style tents is just one of the changing trends tracked by Chuck Frayer, recreation planner for Oregon and Washington’s national forests. “We’re starting to see a shift in use,” the 40-year veteran says. “It’s not like it was when I was a kid.”
After decades of growth, the number of people engaged in recreation outdoors and on public land began to level off or decline in the 1980s and 1990s (see graph below). People appear to have less time, money or desire to venture to the more remote and undeveloped public lands, so they increasingly seek out more convenient outdoor recreation.
A 2008 study funded by The Nature Conservancy with an ominous title — Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation –– noted a recent decline in various activities, including national park visits, hunting and fishing license sales and camping. Similar studies, along with books like Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods, create the impression that Americans are hanging up their fishing rods and backpacks because they’d rather be glued to LCD screens than outside emulating Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir and Edward Abbey. Everything from the Internet and organized sports to the sagging economy and urbanization has been cited to explain the shifts in how often people visit public land, and what they do once they’re out there.
And…
The U.S. Forest Service doesn’t report such long-term trends because the agency has repeatedly changed its methods for counting visitors. But Robert Burns, an outdooor recreation researcher at West Virginia University who’s working with the agency’s new science-based monitoring system in Oregon and Washington, observes, “What we see in the West is that there are a lot of people traveling shorter distances and traveling for shorter periods of time. I see a decrease in national forest visitation to what we think of as traditional wilderness and deep-dark-forest kinds of settings.”
Ken Cordell, a leading recreation researcher in the Forest Service’s Southern Research Station in Georgia, also sees that the tastes of Americans are shifting, even as people continue to enjoy the outdoors. Based on telephone surveys, Cordell reports that from 2001 to 2009 “nature appreciation” activities — like watching or photographing birds and other wildlife — grew more rapidly than backcountry hiking, hunting and fishing. We’re still pursuing wildlife, but now we’re more likely to use digital cameras and binoculars. And recreation fads like kayaking and orienteering have some of the highest growth rates. Cordell and his research team also found that “walking for pleasure” and “family gatherings outdoors” are today’s most popular activities, enjoyed by about 85 percent and 74 percent of Americans, respectively.
Interpreting statistics is a complicated task, and the recent numbers indicate many different story lines. Late last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service reported that from 2006 to 2011, the number of hunters actually increased 9 percent — the first increase since 1975. However, well over half of hunters used private land exclusively — a worrisome trend for those concerned about public support for the concept of public lands.
Those rebounds don’t surprise Cordell, who believes recreation generally follows the economy’s ups and downs. Looking ahead, over the next 50 years, his studies predict an overall increase in outdoor recreation, with some activities growing more than others. Per capita participation in “visiting primitive areas,” hunting and fishing, off-road driving and snowmobiling will all decline, he predicts, while downhill skiing, snowboarding and climbing will have faster growth rates. “What people choose to do is going to continue to change,” says Cordell. “I think that’s a major point, because a
lot of our management folks have been pretty much focused on some of the traditional activities.”
What do our readers see in their neck of the woods? As I’ve written previously, I see a great deal of RV and dispersed camping and hiking, lots of ski area use, and lots of local use of open spaces.
We also seem to have many countervailing thoughts and views about recreation. One view is that recreation use is so important economically that it is primary (a la Headwaters study and OIA). The other is a worry about enough people recreating in the future to keep bucks going to our public lands. The next is that more people have more environmental impacts that need to be managed, when people are already concerned about impacts of people on wilderness areas and OHV use.
Here are some quotes from an E&E news story yesterday..
Members will hear from Obama administration officials, county advocates and researchers on ways to extend or reform the Secure Rural Schools program (SRS), which expired last October, and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), whose funding source will soon expire.
The programs provide a financial lifeline particularly for rural Western counties where timber revenues from federal forests fell sharply in the 1990s as protections were granted to endangered species and their habitat.
The Forest Service has historically returned 25 percent of revenues from federal timber sales to counties, and in western Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management has returned half of timber receipts.
Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who authored SRS more than a decade ago with former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), last week warned that if the program is not extended, counties in western Oregon will soon have to decide whether to lay off teachers, close schools, shed law enforcement jobs or defer road projects.
But while Wyden and Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have pledged to secure at least a short-term extension of SRS, Wyden said such a move alone would fail to provide the financial certainty counties need. Baucus is said to have identified an offset to pay for extending SRS.
“A short-term extension is not a long-term solution for these communities,” Wyden said. “We’ve got to get our people back to work in the woods, for example. We have got to increase the number of jobs in resource-dependent communities where there’s federal lands and federal water. We believe that can be done consistent with protecting our environmental values.”
But striking the right balance between federal aid, increased logging and local tax revenues to stabilize county budgets has eluded lawmakers, conservationists, loggers and local officials for decades.
Extending SRS has never been politically popular, as it is criticized by Republicans and logging advocates as a form of welfare for Western counties that would rather get their revenue from managing the forests. House Republicans have proposed a plan that would require the Forest Service to establish trusts that would meet historic revenue targets through sharp increases in timber harvests.
But the bill would lift bedrock environmental laws and was opposed by Wyden and environmental groups. Few believe the Forest Service could achieve historic timber harvest levels without expanding the use of clearcuts.
Wow.. news.. huh.. not very clear on what “bedrock environmental laws” would be lifted. I also like the “few believe”.. I don’t remember being asked ;), wonder who was?
I’m also going to start a new category.. I’ve been putting these kinds of efforts under Community Forest Management, Role of local and state government, trust management, county payments, etc.
They are solutions to the underlying issue of “sustainable rural economies.” So I’m going to delete those categories and start a new one, unless I hear differently. Also looking for a category name more inspiring than “sustainable rural economies>”
But I think these are solutions to the problem and we need to track the whole problem and all the possible solutions. This would include place based, trusts, giving to the state, etc. But I think it’s important to focus on a positive vision of what the solutions would do..
Note: This post is not just an excuse to run Martin’s photo again.
Planners: I’m looking for a photo that shows a real forest plan and all its associated documentation for future posts.
Here’s a link to another story about the Supreme Court case.
Below are a couple of excerpts I found interesting:
One key question confronting the court will be whether environmentalists have the “standing” to sue against a general forest plan, as opposed to a specific project proposal, by virtue of their making recreational use of the national forests. To gain standing in federal court, individuals must show they’ve been injured or face imminent injury.
It seems to me that no one faces “imminent injury” from a forest plan other than, as planner DeAnn Zwight once remarked, by dropping one on your foot. Or potentially tripping over a pile of Appendices. Or falling asleep while reading one (very likely) and smoking…
Apparently DOJ agrees with me, below is a quote from an E&E story.. if you read past the “project htat would “threaten the forest’s ecosystem”.
Pacific Rivers Council “has not identified even one project that will adversely affect even one member,” the service wrote in court documents.
The agency also wrote the challenge was “un-ripe” for a lawsuit because it had yet to sign off on a specific project that would threaten the forest’s ecosystem.
“Absent approval of a site-specific project or other irreversible commitment of resources by the Forest Service, [Pacific Rivers Council]’s challenge to that programmatic decision is merely an abstract disagreement not appropriate for judicial review,” the agency wrote.
“The only role for a court is to insure that the agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of its proposed action,” Pacific Rivers Council’s attorneys said in a legal brief, adding that “agencies cannot take a ‘hard look’ unless they have reasonably identified the consequences of their actions.”
It was interesting in the 2001 Roadless Rule case, it appeared that very general and not very accurate environmental analysis was OK. Some have suggested that different levels apply if you are documenting a decision “not to do things” as opposed to “doing things”. I’m not sure I read that in NEPA, though. But plans, of course, don’t “do things” either. So perhaps if we looked at the 10th Circuit Roadless case and the 9th Circuit Pacific Rivers case, we would have to argue that levels of analysis can differ from decisions that “don’t allow things” to ones that “might could (plans are all about “might could”) allow some things, and not allow other things. I wonder what would happen if the same standards of analysis were applied to the 2001 Roadless Rule and to the Sierra Nevada plans? After all, that was a final decision on not allowing things, and any actions allowed by plans have to go through specific NEPA.
I was also curious about this quote:
In that 2-1 appellate court decision, the 9th Circuit panel concluded the Forest Service in 2004 failed to adequately study the effect of dramatically revised forest plans on Sierra Nevada fish populations.
“The Forest Service provided no analysis despite the fact that the 2004 (plan) allows much more logging, burning, road construction and grazing,” Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the appellate panel.
It’s hard for me to believe that there was “no analysis”. What “Joe, I thought you were going to do the fish chapter. Oh, no, I guess we forgot? Well it’s too late, the document’s printed. I guess we’ll have to see if anyone misses it. Especially since this document is sure to be appealed and litigated.”
Anyone from familiar with this case, please shed some light.
Below is an excerpt: Pacific Rivers Council Cert Reply is a link to a legal document I think submitted to the Court by DOJ, the questions that the Justices will consider. Thanks to readers for sending both. Lawyers on the blog are invited to explain more..
If someone has the link, please send and I will update.
The Supreme Court agreed today to review the standing of an environmental group challenging a Forest Service management plan for the Sierra Nevada.
At issue is a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling for the Pacific Rivers Council that invalidated a regional management plan for 11 national forests covering 11.5 million acres.
The council successfully argued in appeals court that the Forest Service’s 2004 revised environmental impact statement and framework failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act for assessing potential damage to fish species.
The case dates back to the mid-1990s, when Congress found habitat in the sprawling Sierra Nevada — home to 61 fish species and 35 amphibian species — had become severely degraded. It directed the Forest Service to develop a new environmental impact statement for the service’s 11 management plans.
After years of delay, the Clinton administration issued a final statement to conserve and repair aquatic ecosystems in November 2001.
The George W. Bush administration re-examined the statement and in January 2004 issued revisions. According to court documents, the new document made significant changes, including “substantially” increasing total acreage to be logged and the size of trees that could be harvested.
It also paved the way for new logging roads and reconstruction of existing roads and reduced grazing restrictions for commercial and recreational livestock.
The Pacific Rivers Council brought a lawsuit in May 2005 contending that the revised framework did not analyze the environmental consequences of those changes and, therefore, did not comply with NEPA for fish and amphibians.
At issue for the court is whether the environmental group has standing to bring the lawsuit: In other words, could the group prove it was harmed by the agency’s action.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit in a February 2012 ruling said the group has standing. They “have used, and will continue to use, the national forests of the Sierra in a variety of places and in a variety of ways,” 9th Circuit Judge William Fletcher wrote. The court held that the 2004 framework didn’t comply with NEPA for fish but did for amphibians.
In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, the Forest Service argued that the environmental group failed to meet that bar.
Pacific Rivers Council “has not identified even one project that will adversely affect even one member,” the service wrote in court documents.
The agency also wrote the challenge was “un-ripe” for a lawsuit because it had yet to sign off on a specific project that would threaten the forest’s ecosystem.
Here are the issues:
United States Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council, 12-623
Issue: (1) Whether respondent Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) has Article III standing to challenge the Forest Service’s 2004 programmatic amendments to the forest plans governing management of 11 Sierra Nevada Forests when PRC failed to establish that any of its members was imminently threatened with cognizable harm because he or she would come into contact with any parcel of forest affected by the amendments; (2) whether PRC’s challenge to the Forest Service’s programmatic amendments is ripe when PRC failed to identify any site-specific project authorized under the amended plan provisions to which PRC objects; and (3) whether the National Environmental Policy Act required the Forest Service, when adopting the programmatic amendments, to analyze every type of environmental effect that any project ultimately authorized under the amendments throughout the 11 affected forests might have if it was reasonably possible to do so when the programmatic amendments were adopted, even though any future site-specific project would require its own appropriate environmental analysis before going forward.
John had some comments that got me to reflecting.. from the Canada lynx post.
The Feds are the ones treating endangered species like chess pieces. The Canada lynx is a perfect example. It took nearly a decade and how many rounds of litigation before the FWS issued a warranted finding? And once they were listed, the FWS was supposed to designate critical habitat. What happened? Julie Macdonald, a Bush political appointee with no science background determined that critical habitat should only be designated in National Parks. She resigned when the FWS determined that she monkey-wrenched the lynx critical habitat issue and multiple other determinations. The FWS then designated more than 10 million acres of critical habitat in National Forests. It only took several more years and rounds of litigation.
Enviros don’t view themselves as “morally superior people.” Congress and President Nixon determined that we have a duty as a country to ensure species don’t go extinct:
Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of
animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of
value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the
heritage we all share as Americans. I congratulate the 93d Congress for taking this
important step toward protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless future
generations of our fellow citizens. Their lives will be richer, and America will be more
beautiful in the years ahead, thanks to the measure that I have the pleasure of signing
into law today.
President Nixon, December 28, 1973.
(a) Findings
The Congress finds and declares that–
(1) Various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;
(3) these species are of esthetic ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants fating extinction 16 U.S.C. §1531.
So I am a scientist, and I am all for trying to keep species around. However it seems to me that, like any noble social goal, like reducing poverty or providing healthcare, the devil is in the details. From my point of view before I retired, there were a number of things that keep it from being a pure exercise.
First is that legal and environmental folks stated that species are a tool to promote a point of view through the courts. Spotted owl- logging, sage grouse- oil and gas. So it is not that simple as a positive vision “let’s all try to save a species.” In fact, that seems to be more the fact on private lands (see the Black Footed Ferret, or Best Ferret Forever, as I liked to call it). Where positive visions are developed, and various instruments used to promote that vision. On public lands, litigation has left more of a “what you can’t do” sort of mentality. Which makes sense if the target is to really stop things you don’t like.
Second is that if you really believe “global climate change will drastically alter the plants and animals who can live on a piece of ground”, then litigating to reduce thinning or prescribed burning is like varnishing the deck chairs of the Titanic. I don’t see how you can hold both thoughts at the same time (we haven’t a clue as to what will happen in 20 years in terms of climate), and (we must not allow this 150 acre thinning project because it might have an impact on lynx). Applying the varnish has a great deal of costs associated with it, and doesn’t work, if the species is not going to be inhabiting those acres anyway.
Third is simply the idea of endangered species. I’m a population biologist, so the term “species” has a meaning for me. Lynx is doing fine in some places. To me, restoring it everywhere it used to be is different from making sure it doesn’t go extinct. Especially when some of those places are further south, see climate change, above. I’m waiting for Californians to reintroduce grizzly to central California. I know this is heretical, but to me it’s not “endangered” if it exists in Canada or Alaska. Extinction to me also has meaning…extinction, not “it’s still around but not in the continental US.” I don’t read the legislation that way, although judges might.
Back when I worked in California, someone dreamed up the idea (external groups with some of our scientists, we heard ) that sugar pine was endangered, so a bunch of folks in my office had to go count (estimate) all the sugar pine. You can drive anywhere from southern Cal to Bly, Oregon, 25 or so years later and see that they are fine. I don’t think that currently widespread species (including whitebark) are really what was intended in the legislation. You see, prediction of what will happen to these trees in the future is not “science”. Counting existing animals or trees could be fact-based. And when you get scientists’ prognostication and pontification (hidden under the mantle of “science”) mixed in with Legal World, it’s really scary, and at the end of the day may not do any good in Physical World.
Fourth is related to the spotted owl example. If we stop doing things, and it turns out that there are other factors (climate change? barred owl?), then the answer is not to stop doing even more of the same things you already stopped. This only makes sense if your original point was to “stop doing things” in the first place.
Fifth is a bit of internal USG dynamics. When regulatory biologists and research biologists and agency biologists disagree, rather than have it be “managed”, I would like to see the debate go on in the public sphere where other knowledgeable folks could participate. There is a disagreement resolution process, but I have heard people tend not to use it as it is potentially bad “work karma” to highlight disagreements. Even when we could all learn from them.
Finally, I had kind of a bad experience when I worked on the Hill. I was the staff assistant for the Congresswoman on the D. Environmental Caucus. We talked a bit about problems with ESA, but rather than reaching across the aisle, the folks felt that it was better to use it as a tool to attack the R’s. When we talk about adaptive management and continuous improvement.. well, that was not the vibe I was getting. If I were going to impanel a bipartisan commission to address the question of updating, I would ask:
1) How is it working? Is it producing desired outcomes? Could these be produced at less social and economic cost, both to others and to the government?
2) What are the problems people are having with the current processes? Could they be resolved through some tweaks?
3) Can we make all the scientific and value discussions more transparent, with public review on the internet of all documents? Can we post also post without paying for them, to the public, notes from settlement discussions between DOJ and plaintiffs?
4) How is the federal land vs. private land working? Are there lessons to be learned?
5) Given the unknowable future of climate change and increasing populations, should we tweak the statute or regulations in any way?
I have lived in the same location, here in the central Sierra Nevada, and I haven’t been to this very local recreation spot. White Pines Lake has a logging museum, with plenty of stuff to see and ponder. For example, did this trailer have bunks, to hold the logs on the trailer?
They have some saws not all that old.
And others that are impressively powerful. Imagine the guy who hauls this beast with him all day long.
Here is how big logs were skid in the past. Yes, it was important to keep the leading edge of the log elevated, to reduce skidding damages.
Now I am not for land transfer as a solution. I think that there is a middle way, or a variety of middle ways, to be tested that could help us deal with the concerns of local people and officials. But first we have to be willing to listen, and not enemize or partisanize them, or simply tell them that their concerns are not valid. Basically the US owns the land and it can do what it wants, buffeted by alternating sets of national interests.
Here is the link.
But here is an interesting paragraph:
WHAT ABOUT RECREATION?
Haunold, whose business sells skis, bikes and other outdoor equipment, said nothing in the discussion addresses his industry, whose $6.3 billion in consumer spending generates 77,000 jobs annually, according to a new report by the national Outdoor Industry Association.
According to a 2011 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the parent agency of the U.S. Forest Service, more than 7 million people visit Idaho’s 20 million acres of national forests annually, spending more than $400 million.
A 2011 Interior Department report concluded that recreation accounts for six times more jobs than grazing or timber, and three times more than energy and minerals on the 12 million acres in Idaho managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Even though much of the visitation hits rural communities, much of the spending is done in Idaho’s urban areas, so the rural lawmakers backing the bill don’t necessarily see the economic benefits of recreation in their districts. What they do see are reduced timber harvests and restrictions on grazing.
That’s why Haunold is skeptical when lawmakers say they won’t sell off the land if they can win a lawsuit upholding their plan and force Congress to turn it over – which Haunold thinks is a distinct long shot.
“As soon as they get their hands on it, they are going to sell off what they think is not valuable,” he said. “They’re going to fail, but along the way they will waste my taxpayer dollars.”
I italicized the part that interested me. First, I ‘d like to see the breakdown of where the jobs are if articulated in the studies he refers to.
But I hadn’t heard before that the “rural communities don’t necessarily see the economic benefits”. I wonder if that’s true? If it is, perhaps OIA would support a “Payments to Counties-like” transfer based on a percentage of say, metro sales going to support governments in rural areas? It only makes sense if those uses are up-and-coming, require county services, and don’t pay taxes in the counties.
I am beginning to understand the point of view of some rural legislators. We can’t use the land for what would give local people jobs, but we can to give urban people jobs… because those uses are .. better..
There is a bit of an air of domestic imperialism here. I didn’t focus on that in this piece but here’s also a quote from Swearingen’s piece on collaboration that we discussed here:
The idea of collaborative process has had its skeptics ever since it got a foothold in the 1990s, as people looked for ways through the polarization of the timber wars. The basic idea was to get traditional foes like loggers and wilderness advocates into the same room to hammer out proposals that might spare the Forest Service some costly litigation. But critics complain that these local, collaborative groups shift power from urban conservation interests to a rural minority.
Maybe that’s what all the unrest is really all about. Maybe we should discuss the power issues directly. What would it take to give local communities their rightful place in determining land uses? What is the local communities rightful place? Are some communities simply colonies of national interests and groups, because they happen to have a large federal land component, and they should simply resign themselves to the fact that outsiders know more than they about what is best?
So there are many problems with management of federal forests. A helpful and eagle-eyed reader sent these links about efforts to stop physical protests of timber sales on Oregon State forests.
Here’s the link to this story and below is an excerpt.
The 2011 protests were less about speech than about a sanctimonious form of thuggery. Perched precariously in trees, the protesters dared loggers and authorities to dislodge them. They tore up a culvert to protect their protest site.
Critics of Krieger’s bill complain that it “criminalizes protest.” Similar complaints have been voiced about a federal law, signed by President Barack Obama last year, that allows prosecution of anyone who knowingly enters federal buildings to disrupt government functions. (It’s known as the “anti-Occupy law.”)
Writing a law to punish hooliganism, without unduly restricting freedom of expression, is a tricky business. Courts have interpreted the First Amendment to cover a variety of non-verbal protests. But a physical, potentially deadly confrontation surely reaches beyond constitutionally protected free expression.
Making it a felony may be overreaching on Krieger’s part. He has a companion bill that would let loggers sue protesters for lost income, and it may be easier to pass. But monetary loss is a less effective deterrent than the threat of jail time and a felony record.
If Oregon seriously wants to harvest timber from state forests, it has to find a way to deter the protesters’ guerrilla tactics. If not, the guerrillas own the woods.
Here’s the Cascadia Wildlands view (it’s long, but I’m going to put it all in so it’s clear I’m not cherry-picking, plus it’s not a news story):
When it comes to the fight for old growth forests in the state of Oregon, Cascadia Forest Defenders (CFD) have recently been enjoying the sensation of winning. The fight for the Elliott State Forest, which has been escalating since 2009, has had all the elements of a successful grassroots campaign. Multi-tiered woods blockades at the point of extraction, a series of escalating direct actions at the point of decision, coalitions built with interested parties all over the spectrum of environmentalism, and relationships forged with the communities that will be most affected by horrific clear cutting. The projects that CFD has contested were enjoined by a lawsuit brought by conservation groups in Oregon declaring the cutting in the Elliott illegal under the Endangered Species Act. As I write, the Elliott is protected under legal injunction and not a single old growth tree has been felled there since early May. We have been celebrating our victories, growing in numbers, plotting our next moves in the Elliott and expanding our focus to include other campaigns– all the things a healthy campaign should be doing.
Unfortunately, with increased escalation, success, and support comes increased state repression. Now, forest defenders in Oregon and all of their allies are facing a bill that would create a felony out of forest defense protest tactics. HB-2595, which specifically mentions the Elliott State Forest, clearly intends to stop CFD in their tracks. This nasty bill, financially backed by the shameless timber industry, requires a MANDATORY MINIMUM of 13 months in prison for a first offense of “interfering with state forestland management”, with a second offense earning protesters a full 5 years in prison! Interfering is defined as, “The person, while on state forestland or an access road, intentional hinders, impairs or obstructs, or attempts to hinder, impair or obstruct, the performance of the forest practice.” In practical terms this means– tree sits, road blockades, and anything that costs Oregon Department of Forestry, logging companies, or law enforcement money.
On Monday, members of Cascadia Forest Defenders went to Salem to attend a House of Representatives hearing about this bill and deliver their testimony. They report that the only supporters of this bill were — surprise surprise — lobbyists from the timber industry. Those opposing the bill included a lobbyist from the ACLU, members of Occupy Salem and Occupy Portland, CFD and even a union lobbyist from the timber industry, who gave testimony that this bill could be used to take away their right to go on strike.
This isn’t the first time that a law has been written to specifically target Earth First! activists. In 2000, a law called Criminalized Interference with Agricultural Operations was passed and 99% of the times it was used was to prosecute forest protesters. In 2009, the Civil Liberties Defense Center lawyer Lauren Raegan (savior of those who take risks in the woods) had that law declared federally unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Act. This time around, CFD has the ACLU on our side. Lobbyist Becky Strauss testified at the hearing that this law, among many other problems, violates Article 1 Section 16 of the constitution that calls for the punishment to be proportionate to the crime. She calls this punishment “very unbalanced”.
Mandatory minimums are a tactic that is popular with lawmakers because they want a quick fix to the problem of a certain crime. They leave no room for individualized sentences and are exorbitantly expensive to taxpayers. It costs $28,000/year dollars to incarcerate a federal prisoner. Looking at a list of the crimes that have mandatory minimums, most of them are related to drug and weapons possession, robbery, assault, child pornography and other violent crimes. Nonviolent direct action has no place in the mandatory minimum category, and this will not be a quick fix. Says Jason Gonzales of CFD in his testimony, “Creating a mandatory minimum prison sentence won’t stop us from fighting these projects but it will change the way we have to fight them. My very genuine concern is that it will force large sections of our movement to take their actions further underground. Indeed, instead of stopping us, it may encourage us to accomplish more when risking so much. Ultimately it will further clog an already burdened court and prison system with peaceful protesters who clearly do not deserve such an outrageous mandatory minimum sentence.”
A novel could be written about all the things that are frustrating about this bill and what it could mean for the work that CFD does. For starters, if this bill had been in place in 2011, three of our members would just be getting out of prison right now. “I don’t think that I’m the kind of person that the State of Oregon wants to see behind bars at any cost to the state. And having a law that elevates a simple protest crime to a felony, that would require the state holding me for 13 months, seems absurd and a waste of public time and money,” says Grace of CFD regarding being a target of this bill.
Further, CFD and other forest defenders in Oregon have been specifically choosing above ground tactics so that we can avoid the prison industrial complex and enjoy the luxuries of being active participants in our larger communities. We choose civil disobedience because it is a tactic that allows us to escalate our campaigns while still participating in reasonable public discourse. Says Jason Gonzales on this issue: “The people this bill targets are not violent criminals. I’m a parent. I coach kindergarten soccer. I spend my days chopping firewood in the woods and meeting with my neighbors. We have students, we are professionals, we meet with governors, we present at panels. And when its the last resort we put our bodies on the line. We’re regular citizens who care. Isn’t this what our democracy is for? I don’t understand why we want to see less of this instead of more.”
Will this law pass in the chambers of our lawmakers who supposedly represent us? Will they use their legislation powers to erode democracy and box activism into a corner of petitioning and standing on street corners? CFD is inclined to say they won’t be able to. As we organize against this, the striking thing is how many different types of people support us. We have many allies who believe that direct action is an important tactic in what has become a very widespread struggle for the forests we love. Luckily for us, we are supported by fellow activists, lawyers, environmental non-profits, journalists, the citizens of the towns we live in, our friends and families; all who want us to keep kicking ass in the woods! We will not be intimidated by this state repression, and we will continue to confront this bill, the chainsaws, and whatever else they throw at us. We are still winning, after all.
Said Grace after the hearing, “The silver lining of this bill is that politicians finally have to admit that we are costing our enemies unmanageable amounts of money. I was really scared in that hearing room, but at least now I finally know that we are doing the right things.”
If you support forest defense, civil disobedience, and want to keep Oregon’s old growth standing tall, call Oregon’s House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jeff Barker (503) 649 1767. Tell him to drop HB 2595.
This raises a couple of questions for me.
1) What is it about west side Oregon? This doesn’t seem to happen elsewhere. I wonder what cultural/historical/social aspects may have led to the use of these kinds of tactics..
2) RE: their quote
Plotting our next moves in the Elliott and expanding our focus to include other campaigns– all the things a healthy campaign should be doing.
What is a “campaign”? Is it different from trying to express a point of view about one thing? It gives an outside observer the impression that this is just one issue, but that the underlying goal is something else, doesn’t exactly build trust…
3) I’m interested in brainstorming about who else could participate in civil disobedience to express our beliefs…for example, if some of us believe that project disputes should not be settled in courtrooms, could we just block access to courthouses where they occur?
