Jerri Marr, Forest Supervisor on the PSICC, on Public Service

by
Jerri Marr, forest supervisor for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands, speaks during the morning press briefing Saturday, June 30, 2012, at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs campus. (The Gazette, Christian Murdock)

I’m posting this because I am a big fan of Jerri’s and I think it’s a good interview. While we are organizing our campaign about involving people in recreation management strategies, it’s nice to take some time to focus on good public service and servants.

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt.

: Was there anything about the fires that surprised you?

A: The fire itself didn’t surprise me. We were in severe drought conditions. We have only gotten 19 percent of our precipitation in the last two years — 19 percent a year. The surprise for me, the pleasant surprise, was the way the communities just all came together and all of the agencies, all of the leaders, there were just no egos. We were focused on one thing — making a difference in our community.

Q: What historical figure do you most identify with?

A: I always identify with the underdog. Because that was my life, people who didn’t believe in me. If there is an underdog out there, you will find me rooting for him.

Q: What living person do you most admire?

A: I have the most respect for my parents. The sacrifices they made so I can have the life I have today. That resonates with me, and I want to live my life like that.

Q: Who is your favorite fictional character?

A: Mabel Simmons, who is called Madea. It’s a character played by Tyler Perry. Madea is the matriarch of the family. She is no-nonsense. Let’s just tell the truth; don’t be afraid of who you are. She makes me smile, to be fearless in my life.

Q: Who are your real-life heroes?

A: The men and women who dedicate their lives to public service, in the military, firefighters, policemen, foresters. People who spend their lives on behalf of serving others, those are my heroes. The sacrifices they make, that is huge. People who say, I’m not in it for the money, I’m not in it for the fame. I’m in it for the service. It’s a privilege to be a public servant; it’s not a last resort. When you are thinking about the first job, think about public service. There is such honor that comes from that.

Q: What is your most treasured possession?

A: My Nikon D800. I love photography. If I’m on vacation I have my camera, if I am working I have my camera. There is so much beauty in my world, with what I do. I minored in photojournalism in college and I have loved photography since I was a kid. Now I have a job so I can afford better cameras.

Q: When were you happiest?

A: I think if I wake up breathing this morning , I’m happy. Happiness is a choice. People will let you down, things will disappoint you. It’s about being happy today, in this situation. I choose every day to find the good in others, the good in myself. How can you not be happy if you think about all of the things you have in your life?

Q: If you could come back to life as an object, what would it be?

A: I’d come back as a camera. They get to capture life. You experience the good, the bad and the ugly. Cameras have seen so much. That makes cameras pretty special. They capture the moment.

More Info on ARC’s Modernization Initiative

by

Thanks to Kitty Benzar forARC_Privatization_Plan_2012_FPR_Coverage helpful information from the Parks and Recreation newsletter.
Kitty also pointed to this link in her comments on the previous post.

I noticed this…

Our efforts coincide with a transition in Forest Service recreation program leadership. Jim Bedwell, who has served as National Director of Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Resources for many years, will relocate in early October to Denver, where he will assume regional recreation program responsibilities. Department officials have told us that they see this transition as an opportunity to strategically realign the Forest Service recreation program.

and this from the ARC site:

The reaction to the presentation by the Under Secretary was enthusiastic and positive. He explained that innovative agreements were happening within other Forest Service programs, but that the progress had been slow in recreation – until the meeting. He praised the thoughts presented and proposed immediate work by a team led by Leslie Weldon and Derrick Crandall aimed at planning a “three-hour-plus meeting within a month to make decisions and proceed.”

Planning for this follow-up session is already underway and a search is on for suitable pilot-effort locations for investments, in-season storage and more.

I hope the public gets a chance to be engaged in the “strategic realignment” as well as these other discussions!

Among the eight planks that industry presented to Under Secretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman and Forest Service officials one received an immediate veto – in-season storage of recreational vehicles on national forest land.

But the other seven elements did receive a better reception, with qualifications:

1. Campground “makeovers” and service expansion
2. Marina “makeovers” and service expansion
3. In-season boat storage on national forests
4. In-season OHV storage on national forests
5. Partnerships with key DMOs on outreach, in-forest services including
apps and more
6. Expansion of use of conservation corps by FS, partners, and
7. National Forest Recreation Centers: consolidation and expansion of
recreation at key recreation “gateways” to national forests.

I have to say I am concerned about the lack of a public forum to talk about this..it seems to me that just given the discussions we have had here, a national Recreation FACA committee would be helpful. With some dedicated research funds to answer the questions they determine they need. Just because there’s no NEPA doesn’t mean there should be no public involvement…

ARC “Modernization of Recreation Sites” Plan? RV Storage?

by

Thanks to a reader for this contribution.. Here is the link (to the Camping with Suzi blog), and below are excerpts:

Any help finding the organization and the report she refers to in her blog post would be appreciated. I did find this, which appears to be a powerpoint from June of this year.

Once again, I have to point out that from personal observation, people camping IN FOREST SERVICE CAMPGROUNDS are a subset of people camping ON FOREST SERVICE LAND. This being elk season, I wish someone would fly a sample of forests and estimate people per acre camping and interview those folks and ask them about their experiences. Another topic for the People’s Research Agenda.

A facility-o-centric view of FS camping, or recreation, for that matter, does not tell the whole story. IMHO.

“In season on-site RV storage” is one of the suggested proposals in the American Recreation Association (ARC) “Modernization of Recreation Sites” plan. The concept is that the U.S. Forest Service would give concessionaires operating Forest Service campgrounds the authority to permit, for a fee, the parking of unoccupied recreational vehicles on an active campsite for an extended period of time. According to industry sources, this would allow campers, especially from urban areas, to travel back and forth without having to haul their rigs each time they want to spent time in the forest. This, according to an ARC representative, would be easier on the environment and reduce fuel consumption. The assumption is both would be a good thing. And getting more people enjoying time in the out-of-doors would be good, too.

According to ARC, the number of people enjoying the out-of-doors, specifically in national forests and grasslands, is steadily declining. Although this representative admits obtaining accurate and comprehensive numbers for the number of people who are enjoying national forests and grasslands is nearly impossible, he suggests the decline is more a function of “working mothers” not having the time or energy to perform the logistics necessary for a family to spend time in the out-of-doors. My response is that’s nonsense!

There are many factors likely influencing the possible decline of people using national forest campgrounds. Deteriorating infrastructure in campgrounds and the ever increasing influence of concessionaires could be reasons. An infrastructure where the vaults are not maintained or there is an absence of drinking water would discourage many potential campers. Fees for having pets in a campground, restrictions on collecting dead and down wood so campers must purchase firewood from the concessionaire, and closing of campgrounds as soon as schools are back in session, voiding the possibility of camping in the less crowded “shoulder” season, are likely to contribute to the reduction in people camping at concessionaire-operated campgrounds. Perhaps ARC and others in the outdoor recreation industry should look at other factors contributing to the alleged decline in national forest and grassland campground occupancy before pointing their finger at the “working mother” or suggesting “in season on-site RV storage” would miraculously improve campground occupancy.

We Need to Talk- About the “Other Kind” of Diversity

by

Our blog has profited from discussions of many hot topics regarding the Forest Service and public land management. Some folks, some internal and some external, have said “we need to talk about diversity in the FS.” I wondered about how the followers of this blog would feel, as it may be a bit FS-centric for our readers, but we’ll see.

I think that there are some reasons that it might be worth talking about:

1) who works at the FS is important to the future of the FS and our public lands
2) as with so many things, if not handled well, it can be demoralizing to employees
3) there aren’t many other avenues for people to discuss it
4) the whole enterprise of figuring out what “we” want, and bringing diversity, is, I’m afraid, rife with fuzzy thinking.

We have a proven track record here of mostly respectful dialogue on topics that people feel passionately about, so I am optimistic we can say things on this topic that express our experiences and remain civilized.

Right now I see a series, with this as the first installment. There are things happening right now in the Forest Service (or at least right before I retired) that are worth talking about and will be, but let’s start with the history, at least as perceived by one person. Check out this book and the reviews.. there are still a great many hard feelings and passion, as you will see. It seems like a fire-o-centric view, but then there are many fire-o-centric folks in the Forest Service (and among retirees, if the Rendezvous was a random sample).

The title of the book is: The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service.

Of course, as one might expect, I see things differently, including that fact that I don’t think the FS, nor Region 5, are “destroyed”. But I think it’s interesting that in the comments, many of the current woes of the FS in California (and elsewhere!) seem to be attributed to the Consent Decree.

I ran across this piece about how “feminism” had destroyed the Forest Service; yet I have found it generally found the Forest Service to be a remarkably “un-feminist” kind of place:

Most of the women did not stay long in the most grueling jobs, but they were invariably replaced by others overwhelmed by the tasks. Shaw was eventually denied a position as fire management officer. He said a much less qualified woman was chosen instead. He told Burchfield:

No one had any respect for her; no one had any respect for fire management; no one had any respect for the Forest, and no respect for the agency. It all drained away.

Ironically, affirmative action made for a level of hostility toward female employees that did not exist before. Sensitivity training became standard.

Before the Bernardi decree, men who retired from heavy labor in the field often went into office work for the Service, where their knowledge of the lands contributed to their work. Afterward, these jobs went to those who had little experience on the ground, leaving a void where institutional knowledge was once preserved.

While quite a few men have won individual discrimination complaints against the Service – and have been denied promotion ever since – two major class action suits by male plaintiffs were never fully aired in court. The Supreme Court refused to review them.

The Forest Service, which once turned a profit, now loses millions. Undergrowth flourishes, causing many more fires. According to Burchfield, “eight of the eleven worst fire seasons since the 1950’s have occurred over the past twelve years:”

True enough, urban interfacing, changing climate patterns, and the ever-rising numbers of youths brought up without supervision (today’s arsonists, meth dealers, etc.) are contributors to these disasters. But, the primary cause of these losses is the agency’s madcap obsession with gender equity, which by 1987 had resulted in a tremendous drop in prescribed burns, clearing of fire lines and slash cutting. In many instances, the Forests are so badly overgrown, that they possess 10 to 100 times as many saplings per acre as those managed by the Indians of 180 years ago.

Mexican marijuana cartels commandeer acreage in the West for farming. Crime has increased and service patrols are inadequate to respond to it, with women forest officers particularly disinclined to restrain those violating rules. Recreational trails and mapping have deteriorated so much that the only hope in many places is that these duties will be someday turned over to local conservancies. The tremendous increase in the use of off-highway vehicles has exacerbated this neglect.

Last I looked, there were no female Station Directors, and in Region 2, last I looked 2/11 forest supervisors were women, and one deputy forest supervisor out of seven. So out of 18 line officers of the forest supervisor persuasion, there were 3 women. If women are 50 percent of the population, and after 40 years of trying, we are still less than 20%, then perhaps draconian efforts like the Consent Decree are needed (just a “straw person,” really!). But I think it’s hard to blame a more generic agency-wide torpor on too many women. Not impossible, just hard, especially if you look at the numbers.

This is definitely a situation in which we all need to “listen with the ears of the heart.” I think that if we listen carefully, with an open mind and heart, to everyone’s stories, perhaps we can find a better and more inclusive path forward.

Ideas Wanted for SAF Presentation

by

I’m giving a presentation about this blog at the Society of American Foresters Convention in Spokane, Washington in a couple of weeks.

Here’s what I wrote for the program, as a tickler or possibly provocation ..

The “New Century of Forest Planning” blog was established to support discussion and learning about the Forest Service planning rule, with a mix of practitioners and academics. With time and the interests of contributors, it has expanded into discussions of a broad variety of forest policy topics. The original idea was to try out blogging as an approach to traditional Extension in the policy arena. The first conundrum is that bloggers are born not made, and therefore a blog seems to be intrinsically organic and unmanageable. The second conundrum is that people who work everyday don’t really have time to post and contribute, and in some cases there is a tension between speaking for their organization and speaking for themselves, yet they are the ones with the greatest knowledge that needs to be tapped into. One contribution of the blog has been to explore controversies that are too complex to be handled by traditional media. The second is been to step outside the framing of an issue that is espoused by a certain group and point out that framing is a choice open to all. The third, as intended, is to talk between those who make policy and those who experience it working on the ground. The fourth is to provide a place for comparing FS policies across regions and units. Some of the controversies include the role of litigation in FS projects, the good and bad of collaboration, and bark beetles and fire, and of course forest planning.

What do you think is the value (if any) of the blog? What does it do for you that other venues don’t?
What could/should we do that we don’t do (or talk about)?
What do we spend time on that you think is less useful?

I did get some excellent feedback earlier this year, and have been trying some things (including with retirement, I plan to explore some more “internal” topics) and I would like to hear what you currently think, and if you agree or disagree with the points I made above in my summary.

Also, I ‘d like to thank everyone for your contributions through the last few years and for being part of this unique community.

Pine Regeneration: Bridge Fire, Bryce Canyon National Park

by

The 2009 Bridge Fire was started by lightning, and burned in both the Dixie National Forest and Bryce Canyon National Park. Since the fire didn’t closely approach structures, the fire was allowed to burn to the road, and in some places, to the rim.

Mortality was pretty severe but, there were still some green trees scattered about. It is hard to say if there has been a good cone year, since the fire. I didn’t see a single live new tree in this particular area.

I did see this dwarf Oregon grape but, it really wasn’t a surprise, since I had seen them growing among the hoodoos.

I also saw some manzanita and ceanothus becoming re-established, along with other desert brush species.

As the years go on, the odds for having a pine forest soon are worsening. At 9000 feet in elevation, this is a pretty harsh environment for any tree. I posted most of these pictures in high resolution, so you can see the vegetation easily, if you click on them. You cannot judge pine regeneration after only a few years but, in this case, pine regeneration looks very poor.

To see the pictures from my Bryce Canyon and Zion National Park adventures, go see my Facebook page, please. These include the Peekaboo trail in Bryce Canyon, and “The Narrows” in Zion National Park.

www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware

Forest Service Future: Mike’s Big-Picture Questions

by

We diverged from Mike’s original question in the post here:

It could very well be that we are seeing the end of FS employees actually implementing management plans and, instead, moving into a time where the agency puts together management plans in conjunction with public and then contracts out all implementation (we’re practically there in most cases anyhow). These wold be longer-term contracts with multiple-year objectives. The benefit in doing business this way is that if the FS is legally bound by contract, the funding to fulfill the contract is much more likely to be included within future FS budgets. Another place where this kind of thing might fit well would be in fulfilling the FS mandate to perform adequate monitoring, following project implementation (e.g. forest thinning projects). In this scenario, the FS would still need funding for enforcement of contract terms for whatever the concessionaire (or contractor) is doing, but it could still pencil out as a costs savings to the public. personally think this is a really interesting topic and would enjoy exploring this further… I’m interested in a couple of things… first, do you agree with “we’re practically there?” Second, the idea of legally binding contracts – how could we make them flexible enough to respond to changing needs and also yet solid enough to be meaningful? Other’s thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

into the world of contracting for ecosystem services.. related and worthy of its own discussion, which I hope will continue.

I am posting this to bring us back to Mike’s questions; I am thinking that stewardship contracts may be a preview of this new world, and I wonder what people with experience in stewardship contracting have to say. It seems like it could be easy to build monitoring into a stewardship contract and I assume that it has been done? Here are Mike’s later questions:

That is, whether moving further toward contracted implementation of FS management plans would allow for longer-term management plan implementation on NF, something most everyone agrees is desperately needed instead of the often piece-meal approach that happens today. Sharon raised an interesting question that pertains to whether contracting would/could allow for adaptive management (i.e How would contract terms be written to allow for adaptation but still hold the contractor and FS accountable?). This seems like a really interesting topic for discussion. Personally, I’m just not sure, but would be really interested in hearing of examples where this has been tried before, especially pertaining to National Forest management. As I think about this, though, one example may be found in the recently let 4-FRI contract in the southwest, which is a multiple-year contract to thin tens of thousands of acres of P-pine forest in just the first phase of the project. It seems like there would have to be clauses that account for adaptive management in the there. I’ll check and see.

My other thought on this topic pertained to post-project monitoring required by law on NFs. Here, I think most people agree that the FS has a dismal track record when it comes to longer-term monitoring, and the reason often cited for this is that long-term monitoring requires consistent federal funding, long after a project is completed, and the reality is that the money often just doesn’t come through. I may be wrong here, but my sense is that if post-project monitoring funding was legally obligated through a multi-year contracts tied directly to on-the-ground projects, this could be an effective way of ensuring the motoring actually happens, which would then inform the adaptive management. I’m sure my take is overly simplistic and I welcome other responses. I would guess this has been done already at least on an ad hoc basis, but would like learn more about where and what kind of things resulted. What am I missing?

Future of the Forest Service: Management Plans and Implementation Contracts?

by

Mike articulated the below thoughts on a thread on privatization of campgrounds… I think this is worthy of discussing more broadly, both in the context of Char’s piece on land management needs and budget realities here and as a piece of the whole “privatization” question (discussed here and previously).

so here is what Mike said in this comment:

It could very well be that we are seeing the end of FS employees actually implementing management plans and, instead, moving into a time where the agency puts together management plans in conjunction with public and then contracts out all implementation (we’re practically there in most cases anyhow). These wold be longer-term contracts with multiple-year objectives. The benefit in doing business this way is that if the FS is legally bound by contract, the funding to fulfill the contract is much more likely to be included within future FS budgets.

Another place where this kind of thing might fit well would be in fulfilling the FS mandate to perform adequate monitoring, following project implementation (e.g. forest thinning projects). In this scenario, the FS would still need funding for enforcement of contract terms for whatever the concessionaire (or contractor) is doing, but it could still pencil out as a costs savings to the public. personally think this is a really interesting topic and would enjoy exploring this further…

I’m interested in a couple of things… first, do you agree with “we’re practically there?”
Second, the idea of legally binding contracts – how could we make them flexible enough to respond to changing needs and also yet solid enough to be meaningful?

Other’s thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

New Report: Climate Change Could Cripple Southwestern Forests

by

From the University of Arizona:

Combine the tree-ring growth record with historical information, climate records and computer-model projections of future climate trends, and you get a grim picture for the future of trees in the southwestern United States.

That’s the word from a team of scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Arizona and other partner organizations.

If the Southwest is warmer and drier in the near future, widespread tree death is likely and would cause substantial changes in the distribution of forests and of species, the researchers report this week in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Read the entire article here.

Also, I’ll paste the Abstract of the study below, but the entire study may be view here.


Abstract


As the climate changes, drought may reduce tree productivity and survival across many forest ecosystems; however, the relative influence of specific climate parameters on forest decline is poorly understood. We derive a forest drought-stress index (FDSI) for the southwestern United States using a comprehensive tree-ring data set representing AD 1000–2007. The FDSI is approximately equally influenced by the warm-season vapour-pressure deficit (largely controlled by temperature) and cold-season precipitation, together explaining 82% of the FDSI variability. Correspondence between the FDSI and measures of forest productivity, mortality, bark-beetle outbreak and wildfire validate the FDSI as a holistic forest-vigour indicator. If the vapour-pressure deficit continues increasing as projected by climate models, the mean forest drought-stress by the 2050s will exceed that of the most severe droughts in the past 1,000 years. Collectively, the results foreshadow twenty-first-century changes in forest structures and compositions, with transition of forests in the southwestern United States, and perhaps water-limited forests globally, towards distributions unfamiliar to modern civilization.

Char Miller on the “Park Service= More Bucks” Question

by

National Park Service photo

We have discussed this topic on the blog before. Thanks to Char for putting the questions out there in a well-written and researched piece here called “The San Gabriels: A National Forest? A National Park? Does it Matter?”. Thanks for setting our sights on the big strategic question.

There was so much good stuff that it was hard to pick an excerpt, so I just pulled the last few paragraphs.

It remains an open question, then, whether an NPS-managed recreation area would be an improvement over the current national forest. Neither agency currently has the requisite funds to sustain the forests, meadows, rivers, and beaches, trails, cabins, and lodges it stewards across the country. Like the heavily used Angeles National Forest, the Park Service’s major urban recreation areas, including the Santa Monica Mountains, Golden Gate, Delaware Water Gap, Lake Mead, and Gateway, are showing a lot of wear and tear, direct consequences of years of declining budgets, staff reductions, and deferred maintenance; the same situation is bedeviling the management of our wildlife refuges, conservation preserves, and iconic parks. We may proclaim that the public lands are national treasures, but we treat them like dirt.

Nothing will alter this situation unless we mount a serious national discussion about these lands’ real value, human and environmental. Our debate over the future of the San Gabriels and the Angeles National Forest could stimulate this much-needed larger conversation. But only if we ditch the hyperbolic rhetoric, confront the harsh budgetary climate, and admit that political tradeoffs will compromise whatever choice we make.

If we stay the ax and start telling the truth, we’ll be in a better position to make decent public policy.