The Camel’s Nose

by

On May 6, Deputy regional forester Pena denied Crested Butte Ski Area’s appeal of GMUG forest supervisor Richmond’s decision rejecting the ski area’s proposal to expand downhill skiing onto Snodgrass Mountain. Pena notes correctly that NEPA is not triggered when a private entity proposes a project on the national forests; thus, Richmond’s decision denying the ski area’s expansion plan does not require an EIS.

That’s the simple part of Pena’s decision. Things get more complicated when Pena turns to NFMA. He is obviously troubled that the GMUG’s NFMA plan zones Snodgrass Mountain for downhill skiing. Crested Butte thinks this ski area zone creates a presumption that it can expand downhill skiing to the undeveloped Snodgrass Mountain. Pena appears to agree. His decision directs Richmond to either tell Crested Butte what an acceptable Snodgrass Mountain ski area expansion would look like or revise the forest plan to eliminate the ski zone on Snodgrass Mountain.

Under current NFMA rules, a forest plan revision (as distinct from an “amendment”) requires an EIS. Thus Pena is giving the ski area what it wants — an EIS — but through an NFMA backdoor instead of NEPA.

This illustrates an underlying problem of viewing NFMA plans as all-resource, comprehensive zoning documents. That’s not what Congress required or envisioned. Doing so creates perverse consequences, such as at Snodgrass Mountain, where NFMA zoning creates an EIS obligation not required by NEPA.

Wanted: New Planning Paradigm

by

A guest post by Lynn Jungwirth

Clearly modern forest plans must have a restoration plan embedded in them. We’ve been struggling here lately with trying to figure out “how much is enough”. Currently “cumulative effect” means that you figure out where the threshold is for negative impact….how many roaded acre equivalents can happen before you have tipped the watershed into an unacceptable trajectory. But if we are going to be planning for restoration and maintenance of ecosystem function, we do not have an equivalent cumulative effect analysis for when you reach a threshold which means the system is on a good trajectory and can take care of itself, or is at least adequately repaired or resilient in the face of projected climate change.

How could a forest planning rule help us make that investigation?

I’m also pretty concerned that many of these place-based approaches in legislation are sort of just running over the forest planning process and again splitting the baby . wilderness vs industrial restoration seems so old fashioned. The forests have been run ragged with this either “too much” or “not enough” management approach. The 22nd Century seems to ask more of us. If we are truly going to wrestle with the integration of recreation, silviculture, restoration, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and an “all lands” approach, it seems that what is required in forest plans is going to be very very different than what we have now.

Energy and Federal Lands: Sympathy, and Conflicting Laws

by

Energy opportunities for all forms of energy occur on public lands: oil and gas, geothermal, solar, coal, and wind. Each has environmental impacts.They seem to have different policies attached to them with regard to siting on federal lands.

This week we had an interesting decision by Judge Matsch on San Juan Mountains Coalbed Methane. John Rupe tells me that some of the findings about NFMA were of interest and may be different than some 9th Circuit Cases- so don’t be surprised if you see something along those lines.

But what I wanted to draw your attention to is this quote:

The project area is within two of those counties where producing wells with collection and transmission facilities exist. The plaintiffs’ challenges must be considered from this perspective. This not an opening up of a virgin wilderness. The proposal made to the agencies was to authorize increased production from known gas reserves to meet the demands for energy to support the amenities provided by urbanization.
The extraction of non-renewable resources is an anathema to many in our society. Gas production is the antithesis of environmental protection. The national policies expressed in NEPA and in energy legislation are in direct conflict. The agencies are confronted with the dilemma that they cannot meet both goals. They must attempt to achieve a balance between them that is a reasonable accommodation between harms done to either of them.

And a note of sympathy from Patty Limerick of the University of Colorado in an article in today’s Denver Post, to our sister agency the BLM on the same topic:

“Given our energy habits, and given our inability to change them, we have to go forward with this,” said Patty Limerick, director of the University of Colorado’s Center of the American West, who recently hosted BLM leaders at a forum and is preparing a report to guide conservation initiatives.

“It’s time to hold the mirror up to ourselves,” Limerick said. “Simply taking a sharp stick, and poking it at the BLM, is not really much of a social policy.”

For those of you not familiar with her work, here is a link to the Center of the American West. In my view, they do a lot of thoughtful work on many of the topics that interest us on this blog.

I once engaged in a discussion with a colleague on needing ringside seats for “Spirit of the Energy Policy Act” vs “Spirit of NEPA” bout. This is based on the “productive harmony between humans and the environment” of Section 101,

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Section 101:

…environmental decisions and actions shall be made in ways that “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.

Question: Do you think they are in conflict (other environmental laws and the Energy Policy Act), and, if so, should that be considered by a future land law review?

Some Blog Introspection and A Change

by

Two things.. First, Martin and I have been thinking about what happens after the third national roundtable next week…information about the rule process will fade as the rule writing team goes to work. Still, the folks contributing to this blog seem to have plenty to talk about…so perhaps we should be more conscious about expanding what people are interested in with regard to Forest Service policies and activities. Based on the past few weeks discussion, we are interested in place-based legislation, the land law review, the use of science in natural resource management, Forest Service management improvement and a variety of related topics.

Second, is that I’ve decided to take the FS logo and my official address off the blog. I think we need to be very clear on what is part of our public process and what is not – especially since our collaborative efforts are so extensive- the official blog, regional and national roundtables, and so on. People could be legitimately confused about what is official and what is not, as so many approaches are out there. When Martin and I started this blog, we didn’t even know that there would be an official blog, so the terrain was very different than today. I think the public involvement effort we (the FS) are doing is just an incredible piece of work, and I applaud all those folks who are working on it.  Even if there were only a slight risk of distracting anyone from that effort, it would be too big a risk for me.

Of course, this will not change my commitment to the blog nor  to enjoying and being enlightened by our discussions.

One more item.. we get into discussions on this blog in which we leave something interesting- like I am reviewing the testimony Martin suggested on the Tester Bill-  but  then we get pulled off by our other work and life commitments. I would like to call out consciously that the rhythms of this blog may have a short-term and a long-term component, and that is part of who we are.

Forest Service Sins of Omission and Commission

by

Let’s deal with “sins of commission” first, since these are more easily seen. We humans are not good at dealing with surprise. It gets worse when we are surprised by our own failings as pointed out by others. The sad tale of the US Forest Service’s continuing inability to deal with failures pointed out over decades by the environmental community is testament to this failing. There are sometimes private admissions of error, but where are the organizational admissions that translate to inbuilt policy shifts and organizational behavior changes?

I will never forget a conversation I overheard one day just outside the Auditor’s Building (FS Headquarters). Associate Chief George Leonard, arguably the most powerful FS player of the day was just ahead of me, talking with a companion. As the conversation turned toward the over-cut Pacific Northwest, Leonard remarked, “We did cut the shit out of the Olympic National Forest.” There it was, a personal admission of guilt. Unfortunately, only grudgingly and without overt policy shifts, did the Forest Service change its ways. This is understandable, because as Herb Kaufman (author of The Forest Ranger) predicted, the Forest Service has become a rigid, unchangeable force: a blind bureaucracy. That brings us to “sins of omission”, what you don’t see you can’t fix.

As bad as we humans are in dealing with surprise, we are worse at dealing with our own ignorance. Among the most important things the Forest Service has missed in its ignorance, is that bureaucracy must be managed and must be led. In order for both to be effective – remembering that the two need to be jointly and thoughtfully applied for successful organizing – they must be studied and talked about regularly. They must also be practiced. How was this missed? Note: The problem is much bigger than the US Forest Service. Only in the past few years have I realized how utterly blind and mismanaged are other agencies of the US Government, including the CIA, the NSA, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, SEC, the FTC, and so on.

Right now, supposedly, the top brass in the Forest Service is working with Bill Isaac’s Dialogos group to begin a journey to right what has heretofore been undiscussed and undiscussable, what I have elsewhere called “the management trap”. (See also this on the 2007 Dialogos report on the FS.) But little light (insight) from that effort has trickled down to the rank and file in the Forest Service. And, so far, little if anything has been done to change in internal working of the FS bureaucracy. Or maybe I’ve just not seen it from my “retirement” perch. Is anything being learned? If so, can individual learning translate into organizational learning?

Over a decade ago, I challenged the Forest Service to rethink its stance on management, leadership and learning. Here is a bit of what I offered-up:

In searching out answers, we would do well to read among the many good books written on “planning as social learning” and “planning as organizational learning,” and also among the many good books on “adaptive management.” It’s always dangerous to single out one book, but what the hell. I heartily endorse Lance Gunderson , C.S. Holling, and Stephen Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Within even this one book there are many lessons yet to be learned about ecosystems, institutions and the boundaries that both separate and integrate them. Space doesn’t permit, but we ought not overlook the contributions of organizational learning writers like Chris Argyris, Arie De Geus, Joseph Jaworski, Donald Schon, Peter Schwartz, Peter Senge, and Karl E. Weick. Even if we could figure out a thoughtful approach to organizational learning and adaptive management, we still have to tackle the problem of working politics that Lee defines as “gyroscope” [in Compass and Gyroscope]. This is a lesson well known to Gunderson and friends, but a lesson yet to be learned by the Forest Service.

Later, I reprocessed my plea as a “process gridlock” suggestion:

Do we continue to operate our organization in an antiquated parent/child organizational framework? Do we continue to operate from a belief that running an organization always or most frequently requires use of power-over instead of power-with?

If we answer yes, as I believe we must, why not rethink our organization? We might begin with workshops or “inquiry sessions” for Line Officers, WO Directors, and Regional and Forest Staff Officers. The workshops would focus on how organizations function based on a premise of working with adults, rather than overseeing children. (See generally the literature on ‘Learning Organizations.’)

Sure we have rules and regulations dictated by law and policy that emanate from domains ‘above’ the agency in the US government that require certain things from us. Sure we have encumbrances (also opportunities) on ‘personnel management’ different from private sector organizations. And so on. But that ought not to stop us from reevaluating our organization functions in light of emerging organizational theory/practice.

As I’ve done before, I recommend that you bring in Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe, Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, Margaret Wheatley and/or Peter Senge. You may want to include Gifford and Elizabeth Pinchot as well. Let this group suggest recommendations on how to structure such inquiry sessions as well as on other organizational betterment ideas.

I reiterate my plea, that the Forest Service begin to reevaluate the agency’s approach to policy-making, management, and leadership. There is simply no way to effect better planning policy-making, and administration, if there is no substantial changes in extant bureaucracy. Gifford and Elizabeth Pinchot were among the early proponents of such change. See Pinchots’ The End of Bureaucracy. Unfortunately they didn’t employ the proverbial 2×4 approach. You remember. The story goes something like this:

A farmer went to the State Fair and watches a muleskinner driving some mules in
the plowing contest. He’s got one mule in the lead harness that seems really
smart, doesn’t balk, works hard, has strength and leads the other mules so the
farmer buys the mule and takes it home only to discover that the mule laid down
and couldn’t be made to work.

The farmer and his wife finally drag the mule into the back of the farm wagon,
and the farmer goes back to the Fair. The farmer finds the muleskinner and
starts yelling that he’s been cheated. That mule won’t move, let alone pull the
plow.

“Oh, I’m sorry,” says the muleskinner, “I forgot to give you the rest of the
gear.” With that the muleskinner picks up a big piece of 2×4 and bangs the mule
a good hard blow to the side of the head. The mule scrambles up and looks as if
he just can’t wait to git started.

“Yes Sir,” says the muleskinner, “This is a really good mule. You just have to
get his attention.” He hands the 2×4 to the farmer and sends him home.

The next day, the farmer walks toward the mule carrying the 2×4, but before the
farmer can lay it across the side of the mule’s head, the mule scrambles up and
gets to work and drags the other mules up, too. Best damn mule the farmer ever
had.

The problem is, who can deliver a “policy-making, management, and leadership” wake-up 2×4?
Or maybe such has been delivered via Dialogos and others. If so, when will we begin to see the effects?

Warm Lake Fire Study Excerpts- and Science Policy Situations that Shout Watch Out #6 and #7

by

The WISE blog here has some interesting excerpts from this paper by Graham, Jain and Loseke on the Warm Lake Fire. It also has a link to the complete paper. This paper was mentioned yesterday in testimony before the House Agriculture Committee at a Wyoming Field Hearing.

Interestingly, in this blog, Ted Zukowski reasserts the knowledge claim that 150 feet is the “science” of protecting homes. Sorry, Ted, people want to protect communities, not homes, and they want firefighters to work around those communities, as I said on this blog here. Perhaps that should be Science-policy Situation that shouts Watch Out #6 – when advocacy groups assert what “the science” says, and number 7- when anyone claims “the science is settled.”

Place-Based Comparison Tables

by
Photo by Nie.

“Noneofyourbusiness lake,” Inventoried roadless area protected as federal wilderness under Senator Tester’s proposed Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. 

As part of a cooperative agreement with the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Service I put together a bunch of tables comparing key provisions of selected place-based bills and agreements.  The tables will be an appendix to a larger, more analytical report focused on the emergence of place-based bills and agreements. 

Here is the PDF version of the comparison tables (32 pp) (Place Based Bills & Agreements Master Tables).   Here is a letter explaining the work (Comparison Tables Letter).

I hope that the tables provide people with some useful information, a handy reference, and a big picture look at what is happening on different national forests.  The tables will also be used for background reading and reference for the upcoming symposium focused on place-based agreements and laws. 

I’ve already written a couple pieces trying to make sense of these things (one post focused on certainty, the other on restoration).  Very curious of other interpretations of the tables and what they mean.

Boundaries, Eh.

by

 

Photo by Nie.

A Canadian Whale? A Vancouver Canucks fan? Drink Labatt’s blue? Smoke du Maurier’s at a Tim Horton’s?  Other clues….

I spent part of last week at a workshop focused on “Integrating and Applying Conservation Science for Transboundary Coastal Temperate Rainforests.”  Basically a lot of intense time thinking about the Tongass in Southeast Alaska and the Mid-to-North Coast of British Columbia (including the Great Bear Rainforest, Haida Gwaii, etc.). 

I was struck by how similar the discussions were to those here on the blog.  People on both sides of the border are struggling with so many similar planning, management, conservation, and community issues.  Lots of the same stuff, but in a much different governing context.

One of the most obvious themes of the workshop is the importance of boundaries in forest management and conservation.  That this place is ecologically connected is beyond question.  It is collectively the largest temperate rainforest in the world.  The region also faces some similar threats, and not just those from the “timber wars” that have long characterized the region. 

Similarities and connections notwithstanding, the region is dominated by boundaries.  Consider just two.  First, there is the obvious international boundary.  So strong is this demarcation that is has impeded the sharing of information and makes it difficult to learn lessons from one another.  The workshop was designed to start chipping away at this problem. 

Another boundary is that between terrestrial and marine conservation.  One of the things making the Tongass so different (and special) compared to other national forests is its marine interactions and context (an archipelago).  Same goes for coastal/island BC.  Take, for example, the fascinating relationship between salmon and forests (a compelling story about why we need more holistic, integrated planning:  background on the “salmon forest project” and associated EquinoxSalmonArticle). Despite these interactions, approaches to protected areas most often focus on terrestrial reserves, and ignores the marine. 

There are other boundaries as well, from disciplinary to professional that play out in sometimes baffling ways.  Of course, a lot of this is old ground, and we don’t need to re-hash all the ecosystem management stuff of the past.  But the situation does raise a couple interesting questions from a forest planning standpoint, including:

1) Does an “all-lands” approach (as articulated by the USFS in its planning process) necessitate “due consideration” of adjacent lands in Canada?  (The NOI states that “plans could incorporate an “all lands” approach by considering the relationship between NFS lands and neighboring lands.  The threats and opportunities facing our lands and natural resources do not stop at ownership boundaries.” 74 Fed. Reg. 67,169. 

2) Are there examples of integrated protected lands/marine areas that are instructive from a wastershed/planning perspective? (The NOI states that “land management plans could emphasize maintenance and restoration of watershed health…”.