Colorado Roadless Clarification: Response to theTWS Campaign #2

by
Ragged Mountain Pipeline

The way the TWS campaign piece here is written implies that the “loopholes” are in relation to the 2001 Rule.

The draft Colorado Rule contains several major flaws that, unless corrected, mean Colorado’s forests would receive less protection than other states.

The proposed Colorado rule:

Allows 100 oil and gas leases to be developed in some of Colorado’s best backcountry areas.
Does not clearly specify where logging would be allowed for the purpose of reducing fire risk to communities.
Allows for road building (euphemistically called “linear construction zones”) for water conveyance structures, electrical power lines, telecommunication lines, and oil and gas pipelines.
Leaves out over 2 million acres of exceptional lands from receiving enhanced “upper tier” protections. Further, loopholes put “upper tier” roadless areas at risk from oil and gas development, pipelines, and transmission lines.

This proposed Colorado rule would undermine the protections these forests enjoy under the 2001 national roadless forest rule. Our wild Colorado forests deserve better than this.

Allows for road building (euphemistically called “linear construction zones”) for water conveyance structures, electrical power lines, telecommunication lines, and oil and gas pipelines.

As we know, based on case law  from the Bull Mountain case, the 2001 Rule does allow linear construction zones.

That is the key point that TWS must have missed. So therefore ANY restrictions that the Colorado Rule puts in place make the Colorado Rule more restrictive than the 2001; and therefore give Colorado’s forests greater protection that the rest of the country (of course, whether the rest of the country is under the 2001 Rule as we await the appeal in the 10th Circuit is unclear).

What the Colorado Rule does is define them and put in several kinds of restrictions on them.  For powerlines and telecommunication lines,  going around the roadless area must be show to be  more environmentally damaging.   They are not allowed for oil and gas pipelines that go from outside a roadless area to another location outside a roadless area.

 

Here’s the definition from the proposed Colorado rule:

Linear Construction Zone: A temporary linear area of surface disturbance over 50 inches wide that is used for motorized transport by vehicles or construction equipment to install a linear facility. It is not used as a motor vehicle route and is not engineered to road specifications.

And on the powerlines and telecommunication lines:

Authorize electrical power lines or telecommunication lines within Colorado Roadless Areas only if there is no opportunity for the project to be implemented outside of a Colorado Roadless Area without causing substantially greater environmental damage;

 

Leaves out over 2 million acres of exceptional lands from receiving enhanced “upper tier” protections. Further, loopholes put “upper tier” roadless areas at risk from oil and gas development, pipelines, and transmission lines.

Well, I don’t know how exceptional the 2 million acres are; we could argue about that. I do know that many folks are concerned that the upper tier as in the proposed rule does not allow for treatments for wildlife habitat that involve tree-cutting, and for fuels treatment. It’s easy to say”upper tier is good” but to get agreement about what lands should go into it and what the prescription should be (other than those previously agreed to through forest plans) is not so clear.

To assert that “loopholes put “upper tier” roadless areas at risk from oil and gas development, pipelines, and transmission lines” seems to be a restatement of previous inaccuracies. Again, roads for new oil and gas leases are not allowed, same as 2001. The only question is the legality of allowing roading in the so-called gap leases (see #1 of this series) and that can be solved in court. If the roading is allowed in preexisting leases, it doesn’t matter if the area is in upper tier or not- what governs is that the lease is valid and preexisting.

As described above the Colorado Rule is actually more restrictive than the 2001 with regard to pipelines and powerlines.

Reasonable people can disagree about many things in the proposed rule. But it doesn’t help public discourse to publish untrue and/or misleading assertions. It distracts members of the public from debating the real issues and reduces the quality of public comment and discourse, in my opinion.

I ran across this this morning in my readings, from the Buddhists:

“Right speech (explained in positive terms) means speaking in ways that are trustworthy, harmonious, comforting and worth taking to heart. When [we] make a practice of these positive forms of right speech, [our] words become a gift to others.” (Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

Colorado Roadless Clarification: Response to the TWS Campaign – #1

by
Diorite Peak, San Juan National Forest, Colorado Credit: Tom Harris, USFS

For awhile I had been saying it was time to do Colorado Roadless Fact Check. Most of the stories that crossed my desk seemed fairly innocuous, though, or at least not worth the effort of writing clarifications.

Recently, I ran across this, which seemed deserving of further discussion. This is from the Wilderness Society, and found here. Their assertions are in italics and my responses in regular text.

The proposed Colorado rule:
• Allows 100 oil and gas leases to be developed in some of Colorado’s best backcountry areas.

I think they must be talking about the so-called “gap leases.” During the periods that the 2001 Rule was not in place, most notably due to being enjoined by Judge Brimmer, the Forest Service behaved as if it were not in place. I hope no one finds this surprising. Otherwise it would be very difficult to tell what the agency should do until the specific regulation makes its way through 6-10 years of court decisions, appeals, etc.

The example I use is the 2005 planning rule. When it was enjoined, we stopped using it. Just like that. I remember I had a phone call scheduled with some objectors to the Cimarron-Comanche plan when I got the email that the rule had been struck down.

It seems odd to imply that when the 2001 Rule was struck down, the FS should have behaved as if it hadn’t (??). How should the FS pick which court decisions to pay attention to and which to ignore?

The fact is that a lot of permits and leases of various kinds (ski, coal, oil and gas …) were issued during these periods, and not just in Colorado. Because of the different reasons for the 2001 Rule not being in effect, the facts for each specific case might well be different.

One way to deal with them is simply to let the 10th Circuit decide the legality of the 2001 Rule, which they plan to do (anytime now), and then litigate the building of roads on those leases case by case. Unless the 10th Circuit decides to make the 2001 Rule retroactive (as Judge LaPorte did twice). Which is also fairly odd to the non-legal minded. How is the FS to know which rules will come back following being enjoined?

The point is that the leases either should have had “no roads” stipulations or not; that is a legal question about the issuance of the leases and NOT AFFECTED BY THE COLORADO RULE.

The Colorado Rule simply says, if oil and gas leases are found by the courts to have been issued legally, allowing road construction, before the promulgation of the Colorado Rule, they are grandfathered in. If the courts decree that the leases should not have allowed roads, then roads are not allowed. The legality is determined by conditions at the time of the lease, not now.

A relatively trivial problem with the above assertion is that the number may be 50-60 rather than 100, and actually less than that since some leases have expired since the last roundup of data.

Correct answer: 2001 Rule and Colorado are identical- even if 10th Circuit decides on legality of stipulations retroactively.

• Does not clearly specify where logging would be allowed for the purpose of reducing fire risk to communities.

What would be a clear specification? The proposed rule says up to 1 ½ miles with HFRA conditions and a Community Wildfire Protection Plan? And only up to ½ mile for temporary roads. What would be clearer than that?

Interestingly, in the past other staff members of TWS have stated to me that the 2001 allows fuel treatments due to my personal favorite exception (“to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.”)

The argument has gone something like this: if a community is surrounded by ponderosa pine trees and they want hazardous fuel treatments under the 2001 they can do it anywhere with no restrictions, since thinning ponderosa pine restores the “characteristics.. within the range of variability”. This argument was made by folks from Colorado and Idaho to the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC).

Now many of you may be thinking “this clause is confusing, how could we tell what might be “natural” under the “current climatic period” which we know to be, in and of itself, unnatural?”. Not only that, but we would need to know the “range of variability” for this current unnatural climatic period. Warning: thinking too hard about this exception may make your head hurt.

But the unfortunate community who lives surrounded by dead lodgepole, may not be able to do fuel treatments because, after all, acres of dead lodgepole are within the range of natural variability (at least of the last climatic period). This was discussed by folks from Colorado and Idaho at meetings of the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC).

So it seems like the 2001 Rule is really less restrictive than the proposed Colorado because you can do “logging” that would reduce fuels anywhere, given the unclear language of the exception.

In contrast, the proposed Colorado rule limits fuels treatments to certain areas around communities and under certain conditions.

************************

That’s probably more than enough roadless arcana for now.. more in #2 of this series.

MJ on Public Lands- Let’s Try Something Different

by

See this article,
“Investigators uncover largest outdoor pot grow in Oregon’s history”.

On Wednesday, the Wallowa County Sheriff’s Office, assisted by the Oregon State Police SWAT team with air support from the Oregon Army National Guard, served a search warrant at the northeast Oregon location and arrested six suspects.

“The resources, time and effort these outdoor growers are committing to avoid detection and protect the site pose a significant risk and danger to the public and law enforcement officers,” said Fred Steen, a sheriff’s spokesman. Steen added that the grow was ongoing for a substantial period.

La Grande Police Sgt. John Shaul called the operation “staggering,” saying eradication of the plants took two days.

“Many people would be outraged at the damage to our public lands caused by illegal marijuana growers,” he said.

Investigators also found campsites and numerous weapons, including semi-automatic long barrel firearms and handguns. Food, water and other supplies were found at campsites that could sustain the growers for several weeks, according to deputies.

The United States Forest Service and OSP Fish & Wildlife will survey the site to determine the environmental damage and how to rehabilitate the altered terrain.

My understanding is that people want to grow on public land as opposed to private so their property won’t be confiscated when they are caught. It seems like a policy with bad unintended consequences. I’m with Fenwood and others who like the legalize-and-tax approach. Seems like it could save- and earn- substantially more federal dollars than, say, removing the Fiddlin’ Foresters website.. Maybe it’s time for national forest neighboring communities to rise up and say “enough,” before someone gets killed.

More on Psychological Warfare, Litigation, and Morale

by

Check out this op-ed by Ray Ring in last month’s High Country News. It sounds like something I would have written, were I a better writer. I italicized the quote below- that quote pretty much creeps me out. If it is accurate, I need some kind of ritual to dissipate the negative energies (perhaps a burning of the quote in a bonfire at Solstice?).

Op-Ed – From the May 30, 2011 issue by Ray Ring

I have a friend named Gina who is a great marriage counselor. Gina is roly-poly and effervescent — her mere presence disarms uptight people. With a Ph.D., an M.D. and decades of experience, she’s an empathetic listener, expressing just enough of her own opinions to create a genuine conversation and strive for breakthroughs. She’s very effective in advising people on how to get along.

Contrast Gina’s interpersonal strategy with that of Kierán Suckling, the director of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, which endlessly cranks out lawsuits to enforce the Endangered Species Act:

“(Lawsuits) are one tool in a larger campaign, but we use lawsuits to help shift the balance of power from industry and government agencies, toward protecting endangered species,” Suckling told HCN in 2009. “By obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam … we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms. …”

Suckling’s group often wins in court. But instead of helping various parties come to an agreement, as Gina does, Suckling wants to steamroll opponents: “New species listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners … feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed — and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules. … Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.”

Suckling’s warlike strategy doesn’t characterize the environmental movement as a whole, but it’s shared by enough groups to shape the general public misperception that all environmentalists are determined to get their way regardless of the costs to other people’s livelihoods and lifestyles.

Our cover story by seasoned wildlife writer Hal Herring explores the drawbacks of the lawsuit strategy, through the example of wolves in the Northern Rockies. Many groups pushed lawsuits for two decades to help wolves get re-established in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, but they caused a new surge in anti-wolf — and anti-environmentalist — anger. So politicians of both parties united to strip Endangered Species Act protections from most Northern Rockies wolves, effective May 5.

Meanwhile, one Western group that has filed lawsuits on behalf of hundreds of species — WildEarth Guardians — reached an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 10: That group offered to limit further ESA legal actions for six years, to allow the agency time to decide the fate of 251 wait-listed species. Predictably, Suckling’s group has challenged the compromise.

Does the future of wolves seem iffier than ever? Hunters in Montana and Idaho will probably reduce the wolf population initially. I’m betting that, as the locals feel they have more control, the anger will recede and more people will accept wolves as natural wonders, creating a community spirit that can preserve them. Gina would approve.

UPDATE: further research shows that the quote was from an interview with HCN here. Don’t know how I missed this originally, must have been observing Winter Festival. More on other aspects of the interview later.

Also I ran across this interesting piece by Ted Williams.

And here’s a letter in response to the HCN interview.

Letter – From the January 11, 2010 issue by Mike Ford

After reading the recent interview with Kieran Suckling, it occurs to me the one reason we’re having so much trouble advancing meaningful conservation opportunities is we’re spending too much time, energy and money fighting each other (HCN, 12/21/09 & 1/4/10).

The litigation and lawsuits advanced by the Center for Biological Diversity are having the exact opposite effect from that suggested by Mr. Suckling. They have cost taxpayers countless millions and not a single dime of that money is making its way to the ground where it is needed most to protect forests, wetlands and other wildlife habitat. The CBD may think it is forcing agencies to be responsive while achieving results not possible in the absence of litigation, but the vast majority of concerned conservationists may disagree. Many of us feel the money would be better spent on the ground rather than responding to multiple lawsuits and countless petitions.

Agency personnel are paralyzed by the lawsuit frenzy and they are no longer willing or able to exercise any level of risk or innovation, even when it will serve important environmental and conservation objectives. Agency personnel have traditionally seen themselves as entrepreneurial but the vast majority have grown so wary of potential litigation they are unable to take risks. Sadly, balancing reasonable economic and environmental objectives has become virtually impossible without threat of litigation.

Not that long ago we tried to work out our differences face-to-face instead of through lawyers. Our continued desire to protect land, plants and animals should be driven by the desire to cooperate — not because we might get sued.

Mike Ford
Las Vegas, Nevada

Tempest in a Violin Case- How Would You Reduce Duplication?

by

Don’t know if it’s a slow news period, the beginning of silly season (pre-election behavior) or both. Note: this post is not intended to open the floodgates of politician-bashing. It is intended to direct our attentions (and possibly, indirectly to the Administration and the Congress) to the question of “given our current economic climate, how can we best reduce costs and avoid duplication in federal land management and associated work?”

The President himself says that the government should not pay ($125 per year) for the Fiddlin’ Foresters website. All the details are found in this post at at Wildfire Today, including a link to the handy Waybackmachine site which apparently shows web content from the past.

Now the mission of the Fiddlin’ Foresters seem fairly important:

Through lively and entertaining musical performance, we provide conservation education, enhance employee morale and communicate the value of public service and federal land management in a new century of service.

The FFs attempt to improve morale (I can vouch personally for that) and call us to the importance of public lands through the arts. I personally think the FS would be a better place with more attention to morale and internal cohesion. I think the employee survey says something along the same lines.

But if you were to find the biggest budget buster and remove it, what would it be?

I have three candidates:

1. Recombine the federal land management agencies to reduce duplication. Or at least
2. Require BLM, NPS, FS and FWS to plan together where their jurisdictions are adjacent.
3. Stop handing out research funds to do the same thing to six or seven different agencies. For example, NSF, NOAA, the Forest Service, and USGS all appear to fund studies around what land managers need to know. Some funding goes to grants that scientists must apply for, and spend time developing. You have FS scientists writing grant proposals to get USGS funding and vice versa. There is no mechanism to avoid duplication, and the mechanisms to ensure that the products are useful are not all that clear. I wrote about them in the “Conveyor Belt” post here.

What are your thoughts?

New Planning Rule : Less Litigation? More Defensible?

by

Check out this EE news story.

FOREST SERVICE: Agency chief says no ‘redraft’ for planning rule (06/14/2011)

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell today said he has no plans to scrap the agency’s draft planning rule for the nation’s forests and grasslands, as urged last month by a group of nearly 60 lawmakers who warned the proposal could draw unwanted lawsuits.

But he also made no indication whether the agency would follow the recommendations of conservationists who have argued the agency’s new planning proposal lacks regulatory teeth to protect and monitor wildlife and their habitats.

He said the agency is hard at work analyzing more than 300,000 comments it received in the three months since the draft was released in mid-February. The agency still expects to finalize the rule by the end of the year, he said.

“As we look through the comments, if there’s something that we missed, we’ll look to make those changes,” he said. “What I’m not OK with is the status quo. The planning rule back in 1982 was a very good rule, yet so many things have changed between 1982 and today that we need a different rule so that we’re able to move forward and restore these national forests and provide for the services that these communities need.”

Tidwell said there are no plans to “redraft” the rule, as proposed by 59 lawmakers in a letter late last month that warned of likely lawsuits from environmental groups (Greenwire, June 6).

“It’s my expectation that with the final rule, first of all, there will be less of a need for folks to litigate and that also it will be easier for us to defend,” he said. “I don’t have any indications from anything I’m aware of in the proposed rule that we need to do [a redraft].”

But the lawmakers, most of them Republicans, say the draft planning rule is overly burdensome and would bog the agency down in environmental lawsuits.

“By adding more process requirements and introducing more technical terms, you are increasing the likelihood that, like previous attempts at reform, the proposed rule will be tied up in court for years,” wrote the lawmakers, led by Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.).

Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson (R) said he was particularly concerned about a “viability” provision in the proposed rule that requires consideration of both vertebrate and invertebrate species on the agency’s 198 million acres of forests and grasslands. He was more succinct in describing the rule today at the U.S. Capitol: “It sucks.”

Simpson said he is meeting with Tidwell this afternoon at the chief’s request and expects to discuss the planning rule and the Forest Service’s 2012 budget, among other things. He was not certain what Tidwell had planned to discuss.

The planning rule seeks to revamp how the agency updates land management plans for 175 national forests and grasslands by speeding planning efforts, incorporating best available science, engaging the public and ensuring forests’ resilience to climate change, pests and other threats (E&ENews PM, Feb. 10).

The two previous administrations tried to revise the rule but ultimately had their efforts stymied in court.

Summer Safety Message: Beware of Marijuana Growers!

by


As asked for by a reader, the straight scoop on safety in the woods with regard to  marijuana cultivation. Here’s a link to a video that shows some pot growing on the Mendocino.

 

Be safe in the National Forests
What to do if you encounter a marijuana cultivation site
Marijuana growers are active in the nation’s national forests and it’s important for your safety to be aware of your surroundings.
If you encounter a drug operation, back out immediately! Never engage the growers as these are extremely dangerous people. If you can identify a landmark or record a GPS coordinate, that’s very helpful. The growers may be present and may or may not know that you have found their operation. Get to a safe place and report the encounter to any uniformed member of the Forest Service or to your local law enforcement agency.

Here are some clues that you may have come across a marijuana cultivation site:
 The smell of marijuana, especially on hot days, is like a skunk.
 Hoses or drip lines located in unusual or unexpected places.
 A well-used trail where there shouldn’t be one.
 Voices coming from an unusual place.
 People standing along roads without vehicles present, or in areas where loitering appears
unusual.
 Grow sites are usually found in isolated locations, in rough steep terrain (typically between
500 to 5,500 feet elevation.)
 Camps containing cooking and sleeping areas with food, fertilizer, weapons, garbage,
rat poison, and/or dead animals.
 Small propane bottles (so that the grower avoids detection of wood smoke.)
 Individuals armed with rifles out of hunting season.
As soon as you become aware that you have come upon a cultivation site, or have encountered
any of the above situations, back out immediately! Leave the way you came in, and make as
little noise as possible.
Get to a safe place and, as soon as possible, report the encounter to any uniformed member
of the Forest Service or to your local law enforcement agency. Report as much detail about
the location and incident as you can recall.

Pickin’ Sides in the Evolutionary Struggle- Good Idea? Good Investment?

by

From NPR, here.

Here’s my question: if we can’t afford/ don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea to kill them all, why are we killing any? Intellectual curiosity? Is that a good enough reason?

Killing One Owl Species To Save Another

by Lauren Sommer

A female northern spotted owl in California. Spotted owls are losing habitat to invasive barred owls, a species originally from the eastern U.S.
Enlarge National Park Service

A female northern spotted owl in California. Spotted owls are losing habitat to invasive barred owls, a species originally from the eastern U.S.
text size A A A
June 12, 2011 from KQED

Spotted owls are on the decline despite two decades of work to bring them back. So, later this month, wildlife officials are releasing a new plan to protect the owls, and it includes a controversial new approach: eliminating their cousins.

In a dense forest near Muir Woods, just north of San Francisco, National Park Service ecologist Bill Merkle plays a recording of a spotted owl in hopes of hearing from a real one.

“I think they’re just probably 50 or 60 feet up there,” he says.

Northern spotted owls became famous in the 1990s, when the federal government set aside millions of acres of forest to protect them. That stoked an epic battle between loggers and wildlife groups over their habitat. Since then, spotted owls haven’t come back. Biologists believe that’s due to an invasion of barred owls.

Barred owls take over spotted owl territory and in some cases even attack them. They have an advantage because they eat a wider variety of prey. In places like western Washington, the spotted owl population has been cut in half since the barred owl showed up.

“It’s a troubling picture for the spotted owls,” Merkle says.

Originally from the eastern U.S., barred owls invaded spotted owl territory in Washington state decades ago and, Merkle says, they’ve moved down the coast ever since.

“The barred owl is a little larger,” he says. “It’s a little more aggressive.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service hopes to deal with this by “permanent removal,” says Robin Bown, a biologist with the agency. “We’re going to look at all potential opportunities, but the most humane way to do it is to shoot them.”

Bown says the agency plans to eliminate barred owls from a few study areas to see if the spotted owls there do better. And yes, she says, shooting the barred owls will raise a few eyebrows.

“It’s a difficult concept, to say I’m going to kill one species to try to save another species,” she says. “But it’s also something that, in some cases, we need to do.”

Eric Forsman, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Forest Service, says shooting owls isn’t a long-term solution.

“To try to control barred owls across a large region would be incredibly expensive, and you’d have to keep doing it forever because if you ever stopped, they would begin to come back into those areas,” he says.

That’s why, Forsman says, it’s looking pretty dismal for the spotted owl.

“I think all we can really do is try our best to provide [a] habitat for spotted owls and in the long run, we’re just going to have to let the two species work it out,” he says.

This also reminds me of a piece in New Scientist last September about BFFs (that is, Black-Footed Ferrets) that also mentions wolves Conservation and compassion by Marc Bekoff. Check it out.

Here’s a quote:

The guiding principles of compassionate conservation are: do no intentional harm; respect all life; treat all individuals with respect and dignity; and tread lightly when stepping into the lives of animals.

Forest Planning- Invitation to Artistic Collaboration

by

I’ve always wondered if the feel of planning would be different if we kicked off revisions with a, say, Blank National Forest art week or weekend, with readings, visual arts, music and theater (possibly with juries and prizes provided by NGOs?) around what the forest means to people. Aspects of this art might then become touchstones in the often head and not heart-filled planning discussions. Anyway, I guess right-brain planning remains unexplored for now, although here’s a contribution from a planning practitioner who prefers privacy (how’s that for alliteration?) who feels the same longings. I wonder how many of us feel this way?

As for me, I have implemented 1982 Rule

Planned to implement the 1994 draft (remember?)

Participated in the evaluation of 2000

Worked on training modules for the 2005

Attempted to implement the 2005

Attempted to implement 2008

Attempting to implement 1982 – again

Anticipate implementing 2011-12 before I retire.

So I offer as a practical exercise and a bit of fun (but I don’t want this classified as “planning humor”) a real online attempt at collaboration of a different kind – an artistic collaboration if you will. But as you may garner, I believe this very concept can transfer into real forest planning collaboration, although perhaps not in rhyme or free verse.

I have for you a poem. You may or may not agree with its contents. Some stanzas are perhaps well formed, some in obvious need of refinement. Maybe some readers who have not made entry or comment will choose to participate. I hope so. Use your creative powers. If you have a replacement for a stanza, reply with the stanza number. Here goes:

The Planning Rule Poem

1. Forget “the best science’

And admit this way’s useless

To “manage” a forest

And follow a plan

When the buzz words change

More than the public can stand

2. New perspectives, no

Ecosystem management, better

EMS, AMS, CER, now ASSESS

All the same, but it’s DIFFERENT

THIS TIME and responsive

To everyone everywhere always, you bet

3. We agree we adore it

We plan to “restore” it

We want it to be

What WE want it to be

And our science is better

Than your science, you see

4. I have this idea

I may be a heretic

To blaspheme “the best science”

As relates to a forest

And employ in its stead

The best ART – there, I’ve said it

5. In the segments of planning

I completely agree

Assess, plan, monitor

One, two, three

And back ‘round again

As the case may be

To adapt, but collaboratively

6. Which is not to say

That Americans should outsource

Our need for the things

That come from the forest

Or underneath it

Of course that IS what we practice today

6. By law forests should

And must in the future

Provide goods and services

(Oh – I’ve heard that before)

With all the new jargon that only confuses

National forests are still about “multiple uses.”

7. ADMIT IT, ADMIT IT, ADMIT IT, I say

Congress has never left NFMA

Behind, so just say to the interested parties

Let’s work together to create in these woods

An artistic collaboration of goods

And services to provide for us and our children to be.

8. Sure we folks in the forest are going to leave evidence

Of our presence, our passing, our needs at this time;

As we need to use resources we know they aren’t limitless

As we play in the forest and know that it succors us

We must simply take care that we don’t take too much

Is that really so hard? Why such a big fuss?

9. Art’s a translation of human sensations

Into a thing that can be experienced

By others as substance, or form, or event

Art is creation, not explanation

Or a scientific finding of association

And a plan’s not a “fact,” it’s a human creation

10. Art moves us ways that can’t be explained

By pieces and bits of data contained

In findings of science

And forests move us in that same way

We plan to create, not to explain or reveal

We know what we like, we know what we feel

11. Having stated what should be obvious

To those who are blinded by dogmatic adherence

To any one notion of “truth” when it comes

To the realm of forest “management”

Be it “preserve it” or “use it” or even “sustain it”

Or “make it resilient” as if WE understood it

12. But “plan” we will, and we’ll to it together

And attempt to find harmony among all the elements

Harmony – a musical artistic term that also is fact

That science can explain, but the notion came first;

It’s the combination of observation and imagination

That artistic collaboration makes a scientific reality.

Zone of Agreement? – Fire and Fuels Treatments

by

See this press release from Center for Biological Diversity.

Collaborative Forest Restoration Project Has Lessened Damage, Severity of Arizona’s Massive Wallow Fire

SPRINGERVILLE, Ariz.— U.S. Forest Service officials say forest restoration work implemented under the White Mountains Stewardship Contract — part of a cooperative project among conservationists, local communities and government agencies — has lessened the severity of the Wallow fire and helped firefighters save towns threatened by the flames. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Supervisor Chris Knopp told the Associated Press on Thursday that he credited treatments with helping to save Alpine, Nutrioso and Springerville. A district ranger from the same forest told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday that restoration treatments aided firefighters’ ability to save homes in the White Mountains.

“Ever since Arizona’s last mega-fire — the Rodeo-Chediski in 2002 — communities, environmentalists, local industry and forest officials have been pouring their hearts and souls into community protection and landscape-scale restoration of the degraded pine forests in the White Mountains,” said Todd Schulke of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups involved with the project. “That work began next to towns where the fire danger was high, and it looks like those years of cooperation are paying big dividends in the Wallow fire.”

After the Rodeo-Chediski fire, the Forest Service initiated the White Mountains Stewardship Contract to facilitate forest restoration in White Mountains east of that fire’s boundary in a swath of forest that includes the area being affected by Wallow. Its objective is to restore up to 150,000 acres of degraded forest over 10 years by strategically thinning small trees in overgrown ponderosa forests to safely reintroduce beneficial fires.

As of April 2010, 49,719 acres of degraded forest had been approved for treatment. Work had been completed on 35,166 of those acres, and the rest were in progress. Most of the acres are located in the wildland urban interface — lands abutting towns — and are intended to reduce fire hazards to communities including Alpine, Nutrioso, Eager and Greer that are now threatened by the Wallow fire.

The Center for Biological Diversity publicly supported the White Mountain Stewardship Contract creation in 2004. Since then the Center has actively worked with communities, the Forest Service and businesses that thin small-diameter trees to ensure the project’s success. That work included lobbying Congress for adequate funding. Because of broad agreement around the project — which resulted in forest recovery and local jobs — it has been hailed as a model for collaborative forest restoration.

“Without the success and cooperation of the stewardship contract, damage from the Wallow fire would have been much worse,” said Schulke. “Our forests need more of this kind of cooperation if we are to have any hope of restoring them.”

The Center and other organizations have been also working together to expand the success of the White Mountains Stewardship Contract to the rest of the Mogollon Rim. The 2.4-million-acre Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI) seeks to restore the ponderosa pine forest from Flagstaff to New Mexico, focusing on strategic thinning of small trees on 1 million acres over the next 20 years in order to protect communities and safely restore beneficial fires to forested landscapes. 4FRI includes a plan to develop a restoration wood industry designed specifically to thin and utilize small-diameter trees in order to eliminate costs to taxpayers and rapidly expand the amount of forest work being done.