George Wuerthner on the “Indian Iron Curtain”: His View of Tribal Environmental Miscreance and the Great Media Silence

by

George Wuerthner did an impressive roundup of examples of Tribes wanting to produce useful things for the rest of us on their land. Many thanks to Patrick McKay for finding this! It’s fairly long and worthy reading in its entirety, but I did summarize and excerpt the parts I thought of particular interest to TSW folks.

Wuerthner  joins us in lamenting some of the choices made in media about what they cover- and what they don’t:

What I call an Indian Iron Curtain exists among the media and conservation organizations. Like the old Soviet Union Iron Curtain, which attempted to promote Communism and censored anything contradicting the notion that Communism was anything but a perfect social and political system. The Indian Iron Curtain exists to promote tribal people as somehow exemplary conservationists.

At the same time, any information that might temper that conclusion is ignored or suppressed. Of course, just as in the larger society, there are diverse opinions among tribal groups. They are no more monothetic than American society as a whole.

Like the fable about the emperor who wore no clothes, people are afraid, especially with the advent of the social justice movement, to suggest that tribal people are like other humans and are capable of good and bad conservation positions.

Anyone who questions the dominant paradigm that tribal people are somehow “naturally” environmenalists (which is a racist assertion in its own right)  is immediately branded as a racist, a colonialist, an imperialist, or, in some cases, a White male, which means you have no credibility since you are the ultimate beneficiary of “white privilege.”

Yet there is plenty of evidence—evidence that is too often ignored or overlooked–that tribal entities are perfectly capable of environmentally destructive policies.

*******

What I think is most interesting about George’s view is his view  that people who produce natural resources (used by everyone around the world) are only driven by the desire for money.

I must state that I am not judging these tribal decisions to exploit wild nature. I cannot say with any assurances that if presented with the opportunity to reap a fortune from oil and natural gas drilling, logging old-growth timber or mining a significant gold or copper deposit I would reject the financial prospects. Nevertheless, I would expect conservation organizations to criticize my choices.

There is a fundamentally different view from mine. Mine is that as long as people make useful things from natural resources, to eat, build housing, heat their homes and cook their food, transport things and provide electricity (just for a few examples), it is right for people who have the resources to share them with others who need them.  I think “sharing useful things with those who don’t have them” is a positive human view of the same phenomenon.

If using the resource, say, is morally wrong, then the folks who believe that should stop using them first, before they ask others to stop producing them.  National security-wise, it is bad juju to decide to stop producing things people need domestically.

Anyway, I think Wuerthner definitely has a point about what some conservation groups (and Colorado politicians) don’t mention, and media outlets don’t look into. Like when BLM had its webinar about the oil and gas regs, and the Tribal folks said they wanted “all of the above” and union folks were concerned.  I guess it either didn’t fit the narrative, or there were no media folks there.

Here are the topics:

Fossil fuel development Alaska

Badger-Two Medicine (I’m posting all this one because it’s related to NFs)

The last oil lease in the Badger-Two Medicine area of the Helena- Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana was recently canceled. In numerous newspaper stories and among conservation groups, this was celebrated with many references to the Badger-Two Medicine as “sacred” land to the Blackfeet Indians, whose reservation borders the area. However, it is essential to note that the tribe does not own the national forest lands. Why that is important is critical to consider.

Badger Two Medicine Area on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana. Photo George Wuerthner

What is never mentioned is that for decades, conservationists have tried to protect the Badger-Two Medicine as federal wilderness, which, given the strict limits on any development, would seemingly protect the “sacred” status of the area from any exploitation. Most recently, after the tribe agreed to a watered-down agreement to protect the Badger-Two Medicine by federal legislation introduced by Senator John Tester, the tribal representatives arrived in Washington to testify against the proposal, much to the chagrin of Senator Tester.

No environmental organizations reported on this reversal in tribal support for protecting the “sacred” Badger-Two Medicine.

Oil drill rig on the Blackfeet Reservation, Montana. Photo Tony Bynum

The Blackfeet have continuously opposed wilderness designation for the Badger Two Medicine. Meanwhile, the Blackfeet have promoted oil development on their reservation and the lands they control are leased for oil development. If the Blackfeet considered land “sacred,” wouldn’t they at least place some of the reservation off-limits to oil development.

However, at least some tribal members are not opposed to oil development per se, but rather who gets the financial benefit. Half of onshore oil and gas revenues from federal public lands goes to the federal treasury, while the other have is shared with the states where development occurred). Tribal members are willing to admit that while they oppose oil development on the national forest, some hope to get the Badger-Two Medicine transferred to tribal control so THEY can lease it for oil development.

Indian Reservations with Oil and Gas Wells

Navajo Coal

Other Tribal Coal

Mining

The media and many conservation groups repeatedly report when tribes oppose a mining operation or proposal but fail to note when they hold a positive perspective on mining.

Unbeknownst to most conservationists, most high-value mineral deposits are owned by Native people or the state of Alaska due to the selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Thus, in Alaska, much of the support for mining operations comes from Native corporations (the equivalence of tribes elsewhere in the US) and their representatives.

Various Alaska Mines

Thatcher Pass Lithium Mine

Navajo Lithium Mine

The Logging Section

As we know, Wuerthner seems to believe that Tribal wildfire concerns are basically about logging.

There is even legislation that would allow tribes to share in timber revenues from federal timber sales, an incentive that is designed to garner tribal support for more logging.

I think the point of the legislation is to give Tribes the same advantages as States. More of a justice thing and less of a bribe. In Alaska.

There is currently new legislation to transfer 115,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest to five tribal corporations (In Alaska, courts have ruled that Native corporations are “tribes”).

I know there are Elliot Forest interests here at TSW so:

TRIBAL OPPOSITION TO ELLIOT STATE FOREST PROTECTION

Recently, efforts to protect the Elliott State Forest in Oregon’s Coast Range were stymied by opposition from the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI), who demanded more logging of the area. The tribes have expressed “significant concerns regarding the limitations and constraints placed on the management of the overall forest and the acreage dedicated to reserves in the research design.”

An insider to the Elliott process confirmed that the Tribes have been expressing their opposition to limits on logging in the Elliott reserves for roughly a year.

Even though conservation groups have been working for years to protect the remaining old growth of the Elliott State Forest, I am unaware of any of these groups  who has publicly expressed any disappointment or criticism of the tribal position for more  logging.

BLM Oregon Land Transfer

Blackfeet and Quinalt have clearcuts

TPL Gave Land to Penobscot

Izembek Road (we’ve covered this before, Biden Admin supports ENGOs over Native Alaskan village)

The Sauk Suiattle Tribe opposes the reintroduction of grizzlies into the North Cascades. They see bears as an obstacle to their “treaty rights” in that it will make it more dangerous to gather berries, fishing, and hunting. Arguably, the grizzly bears were on the land before the Sauk Suiattle Tribe.

Well, there’s lots more.. wolves, fish, Camp Hale National Monument.

TRIBAL CONDEMNATION OF PARKS AND WILDERNESS

What I see as an even graver threat to conservation efforts is the on-going denigration of the entire concept of parks and preserves from the WOKE left, social science academics, and their tribal allies. It deserves an entire book, but basically, there is a growing condemnation of parks, wilderness, and other preserves as cultural genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and other such negative terminology that pose a long-term threat to efforts to protect wild Nature. Much of this opposition is based on flawed logic, a limited understanding of conservation biology and ecology, and a revisionist history.

For example, the Muccosukee  tribe in Florida is opposed to wilderness designation for the Big Cypress Preserve because they assert it will limit their ability to hunt, fish, and gather plants. “We’re opposing very, very hard right now because we don’t believe this is the right thing for the Big Cypress,” said Curtis Osceola, chief of staff for the Miccosukee Tribe. “The fear from the tribe is that a compromise is being made to put these lands into wilderness at the expense of the rights of the tribe, the rights of the public.”

It seems to me that there has been an environmental and conservation movement with a set of goals determined by folks within the movement.  Some I agree with, some I don’t.  Some seem unrealistic, and some have had social repercussions on working class people. Some just didn’t work as per stated intention (spotted owl).  Now our view of people whose views count is much broader – folks such as Native Americans and Alaskans are coming into focus-and we have younger people with different backgrounds and concerns- and the environmental movement itself.. their interests, their positions, may have to change.

AWR Litigates Project Initiated and Supported by Kalispels on Colville National Forest

by

Interesting (free) article in the Capital Press.

A Montana environmental group sued the U.S. Forest Service on Tuesday to stop logging initiated by the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, who are concerned wildfires will start in overstocked federal forests and burn onto tribal lands in northeast Washington.

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

The Tribal Forest Protection Act allows tribes to propose projects on federal land to protect adjacent tribal land. The Kalispel tribe asked the Forest Service in 2018 to reduce fire risks in the national forest.

“We believe an ‘All Lands-All Hands’ approach, involving all parties is a bold and necessary step to improve the current ecosystem conditions,” according to a tribal statement.

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

The alliance asserts the Forest Service should have done an environmental impact statement, rather than the shorter environmental assessment.

The assessment gave short-shrift to carbon emissions from logging and their potential contribution to climate change, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit also alleges the assessment didn’t thoroughly investigate how timber harvests, prescribed burns and road-building would impact wildlife such as lynx, grizzly bears, wolverines and wolves.

More wolves may be poached if new or improved roads open access to wolf territories, according to the lawsuit.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies has prominent supporters, according to its website, including former President Jimmy Carter; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; music legend Carole King; and singer Gloria Estefan.

For some reason the reporter missed Reps. Grijalva and Maloney.

Now I think it’s highly likely that none of the supporters know the details of this project. I wonder if they know they are operating against apparent Tribal wishes and threats to their land and homes?

If we go to Rep. Grijalva’s website, he says..

As the first Americans, the Indigenous people of this region have culture and traditions embedded to the land. I am working to ensure that their rights as sovereign nations are not only respected, but emboldened, through policy-making at the federal level. We have an atrocious history of injustice towards the Indigenous people of this land that goes against the very values of our country and that we must constantly work to rectify. I will continue to be a strong voice for tribal rights in Congress whether it be fighting to protect sacred land from being sold to the highest bidder, working toward better health and economic opportunities for Native communities, or urging Congress to codify the tribal consultation process.

According to InfluenceWatch (and they could be wrong, and knowledgeable folks can correct me) Earthjustice is a vendor of AWR.

Here’s what Earthjustice says:

Earthjustice has a long history of partnering with Tribes, Native groups, and Indigenous communities to ensure their natural and cultural resources are protected for future generations. Today, as Native peoples lead from the frontlines of many pivotal environmental fights, our Tribal Partnerships Program is proud to continue that tradition.

Was it so long ago that the Colville Tribes sued the feds:

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Wednesday, alleging federal agencies failed to fulfill their legally required duties before, during and after the 2015 wildfires that burned more than 240,000 acres and turned parts of the reservation into a “moonscape.”

So I wonder whether these supporters of AWR, or the funders (who are not included in the 990), pay attention to this aspect of what AWR is doing? Or if they know, do they support it? Because at least with Mr. Grijalva it doen’t sounds like “respected and emboldened” “rights as sovereign nations” to me.

 

 

 

“Indirect containment” for San Juan wildfire

by

We’ve had some good discussion recently (which searches couldn’t find) of how to count acres burned by wildfires towards burning targets, and how to comply with project planning requirements (i.e. NEPA and ESA) for such actions.  An implication I got was that a national forest could count a lot of acres if it just let a wildfire burn, and there wouldn’t be any process requirements.

Well, this sounds like the opposite of that, and like what I think should be the proper way of doing this – a wildfire started in an area that had been “prepped” for a prescribed burn.  Assuming that “prepped” includes the usual public  participation and effects analysis.

Fire managers plan to expand the footprint of a 10-acre lightning-caused wildfire burning northeast of Dolores on the Haycamp Mesa next week, and could burn upward of 4,500 acres.

Last month, the Dolores Ranger District announced plans to burn 4,577 acres across Haycamp Mesa Units 5, 6 and 9. Fire managers plan to use existing roads as fire lines within which they would contain the blaze.

The Spruce Creek Fire started Tuesday afternoon along the northern perimeter of Unit 5.

“It’s all prepped and ready to go, conditions are ideal,” said Pat Seekins, prescribed fire and fuels program manager for the San Juan National Forest. “It’s low-intensity surface fire, it’s doing exactly what we need it to do.”

If the weather continues to cooperate, fire managers hope to burn between 4,000 and 5,000 acres. Seekins said crews have prepared around 5,600 acres to burn.

“With prescribed fire this spring, we’ve accomplished just shy of 4,000 acres, which is good – we’ve had a good spring,” Seekins said. “But we’re taking this opportunity to expand those acres.”

It’s not clear exactly how active they would be to “expand” those acres.  Interestingly,

Last year, fire managers used three natural blazes that began inside units already prepped for treatment to return fire to the landscape in the San Juan National Forest. With the help of firefighters, those three wildfires ultimately treated 4,000 acres of forest.

Is the San Juan just lucky, or well-prepared, or does this happen a lot?

Endangered Species Day

by

The third Friday in May is Endangered Species Day, where we should “celebrate saving species.”

We could certainly talk about past successes at saving and recovering some species, but here is a story that suggests the inadequacy of ESA for the task of mitigating or reducing the effects of human climate disruption on many (maybe all) species.  This species has apparently become extinct in the Mule Mountains of southern Arizona – on BLM land under federal land management.

Over the last 3 million years — a million years longer than humans have been around — the Yarrow’s spiny lizards in the Mules adapted to live in cool mountain climates called sky islands.  Because the desert floor below is too hot, the lizards were essentially marooned at higher elevations, as if on an island, and cut off from other Yarrow’s populations in southern Arizona and northern Mexico.

In 2014, the team could not find any lizards below 5,700 feet. Up to that elevation the temperature in the mountains had gotten too hot. In 2021-22, they returned to the Mules to count lizards in the same spot. They were gone.  At that point, the lizards could only be found living much higher, at 7,100 feet, a cooler elevation.

In a scientific paper, Wiens and his colleagues calculated the rate at which the lizards were dying, concluding that it is among the fastest rates ever recorded.

But because the highest peak in the Mules is 7,700 feet, the Yarrow’s spiny lizards were quickly running out of elevations with cooler air. Based on its calculated rate of decline, and with nowhere else to go, Wiens projected the lizards would go extinct here by 2025 — a phenomenon that scientists call riding the “elevator to extinction.”

In March of this year, a survey trip into the mountains with CBS News proved his hypothesis correct, one year ahead of schedule. Wiens could no longer find any lizards, though it will take several more trips before rendering a conclusion.

This species was apparently never listed under ESA, or even petitioned.  The BLM could have petitioned to list the lizard.  You might think that a federal agency responsible for species on its lands would want all the tools available to provide for the species survival, but I think petitions to list a species by federal agencies are unheard of.

We know that species may be listed under ESA because of the effects of climate change (e.g. polar bears).  The ESA would then force federal agencies to modify their actions that would adversely affect listed species.  In this example, changing BLM management practices might have been necessary, but not sufficient, to save the species.

If the species had been listed, at least in theory, other actions that are causing the loss of habitat could have been modified or eliminated which could have benefitted federal lands ecosystems.  A Congressional Research Service Report from 2019 found that unlikely:

Judicial review has helped to ensure that the Services consider projected climate change effects on species in their ESA decisions. However, the courts have not required the Services to curb activities that may contribute to climate change to protect threatened or endangered species.

Stakeholders disagree on whether the ESA should play a role in addressing climate change, with some arguing that the ESA is not equipped to mitigate climate change effects. Other stakeholders believe that the Services can and should wield the ESA to protect further species threatened by climate change by curbing activities contributing to climate change. From the Services’ viewpoint, the best available scientific and commercial data have been insufficient to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from a proposed activity cause detrimental effects on a species or its habitat. In light of the judicial deference afforded to the Services, the courts have not expanded the ESA as a tool to protect listed species by regulating activities that contribute to climate change.

Despite some success challenging BiOps, neither the courts nor the Services have found that climate change effects from a proposed federal action jeopardize the species or adversely modify its habitat.

Even though that is what happened here.  Federal actions authorizing greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to a baseline for this species that trended toward and resulted in extinction.  This same trend is occurring for many other species in less obvious ways.  Nothing to celebrate here.

But the CRS authors offer this (faint) note of hope:

From the Services’ viewpoint, the best available scientific and commercial data have been insufficient to determine that GHG emissions from a proposed activity cause detrimental effects on the species or its habitat. However, as climate modeling and technology advance, the Services may be able to predict the causes and effects from climate change on species with greater scientific certainty and data.

(Note:  This report was written at the end of the Trump Administration and discusses its changes in the ESA regulations, which have since been changed by the Biden Administration.  Also, I have not tried to update what’s been happening in the courts.)

 

Could ‘Science Courts’ Help Build Public Trust?

by

This essay in Undark describes a “a citizens’ jury” designed “to ask whether the U.K. government should allow scientists to edit the DNA of human embryos in order to treat serious genetic conditions. Convening a jury was a non-traditional approach to involving the public in decision-making on a complicated scientific topic that could affect public policy.” Such a “science court” might help the public understand forest health/resilience treatments and could perhaps increase the forestry community’s social license to actively manage national forests.

 

 

How are Climate and Finance Interrelated and How Should They Be: Research Institutions and Insurance Markets

by

I’ll propose Friedman’s law: The further people are from a location where a problem occurs, the less likely they are to understand it, and to view the problem through the lens of their own values, needs and philosophies- which may further their own goals, but not actually solve the initial problem.

I’ve also noticed a general tendency for forest policy to become more overrun by people and disciplines from outside our traditional communities.  I try to welcome these new folks with grace.  They bring interesting and novel ideas, energy, enthusiasm and sometimes lots of political pull and funding to get things done.  I’m concerned, though,  that our world of trees and people is becoming more abstract, controlled non-locally, and financialized (since, say, Hayfork doesn’t have a big presence in the financial sector, the latter two tend to go together).  Just yesterday I was on a phone call with some folks who thought that current investments in federal lands were not going to be “enough” and we need to have “durable financial mechanisms” to support federal land management, possibly including using federal lands for offsets.   Like I said, they might be right.  But I think we should be able to engage with local people, elected officials and practitioners and before the policy ideas become hardened.  That is,  groups go to their buds in Congress, who happen to be partisan, so when local people respond negatively (especially those who are of the Other Party), political lines are drawn and defended when they don’t need to be.  Perhaps we need more mechanisms to encourage discussions between these different communities.. local people and and practitioners, traditional forest users, interest groups and scientists,  and the new philanthropy, political and academic folks, earlier in discussions of policy options.

Anyway, today I have two stories that focus on financialization and climate, and how that affects, in turn,  research priorities and insurance rates.

Forest Science is Too Focused on Climate and Climate Finance; Nature Editorial

What’s interesting about this Nature open source editorial is how it internationalizes our own field of forest policy.

It has a pretty weird headline, though, “forestry social science is failing the needs of people who need it most”: way to blame the victim, Nature!  No, big scientific institutions are more interested in climate modeling than in solving today’s problems.  They allow scientists to prioritize, design, and fund and publish research without feedback from people.  But a full scale redesign of research governance is not what Nature has in mind..

The review is far from the first to highlight that research that should aim to benefit all stakeholders instead focuses on areas that are priorities for the governments of high-income countries. This is an important and timely reminder. It should not be difficult for the researchers involved in the world’s largest scientific networks — the IPCC for climate and IPBES for biodiversity — to create a shared agenda for the study of forests that extends beyond climate change and climate finance. And, given the need for such action, funders should respond positively to such a proposal.

Earth’s forests have the potential to benefit people everywhere. Researchers, policymakers and funders must ensure that everyone’s needs are taken into account.

There are actually plenty of forest social scientists around, though they are chronically underfunded, at least in the US.  There’s a difference between the people at IPCC and IPBES “aiming” to benefit all stakeholders and developing an agenda with stakeholders.  But perhaps the questions and solutions would then be local,  and not international.  Anyway, it’s fascinating to think about how over time the ideas of “climate” and “biodiversity” have changed the locus of inquiry (to international), changed who counts as experts and which disciplines, what questions are asked and what data is used (satellites) and so on.  Meanwhile, I hope social scientists are studying the non-powerline sources of wildfire ignitions  with the idea of understanding and reducing them.  So much more valuable than studies like “impacts of climate change in 2070 on beer production.”

Who’s Running and Supporting the Climate Insurance Scam?

Some of us simple people wonder what all the recent wildfire-but-not-really insurance drama is about.  Yes, climate change can increase risks.  But is there any reason to think that these increases won’t be gradual such that past pay-out history will gradually change, and insurers can still use history to set rates? Not to speak of the fact that for wildfires, the USG and philanthropists are spending zillions on the technology of detection and response, which will conceivably have some kind of effect.

And in my hood, hail is bigger than other risks to home and auto owners, and so far there isn’t a climate signal to hail.  So the stories don’t seem to add up.  I’ve found in my experience, that when claims are made that don’t seem to parse out logically, that there is usually politics of some kind involved, and too many efforts to understand might make you unpopular in certain quarters.

Anyway, there’s a professor named Jessica Weinkle who works at the coastal end of the climate/insurance drama biz, and she often has insights that are applicable to wildfire insurance, the bogus maps,  and all that.  The financial part of her analysis in this Breakthrough Substack article is over my head, but somehow I am not trusting of the financial industry.  Perhaps all the vitriol directed at the oil and gas industry is a magician’s trick to divert us from looking at what the financial folks are up to.  Like most folks, I use oil and gas products daily, and they are important for, among other things, fire suppression; but derivatives could go away tomorrow and I wouldn’t miss them.

Here’s an excerpt:

Last fall, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, announced an investigation into the ways in which insurance companies are managing “mounting risks from climate change.”

The senators foresaw climate change leading to a systemic financial crisis as rising insurance costs put heavy pressure on the mortgage market. “A widescale decline in coastal and wildland-urban interface (WUI) community property values would present a systemic risk to the U.S. economy,” they noted, “similar to what occurred in the 2007-2008 mortgage meltdown.”

The senators’ evidence for this looming catastrophe?

Insurers’ own climate change risk models.

Whitehouse and Wyden’s insurance investigations come after a series of hearings last summer that kicked off with a familiar character: Carney, along with Robert Litterman, a former asset manager and member of government advisory groups on climate related financial risk. Both argued that climate change is causing increasing frequency and intensity of weather extremes and losses creating risks to financial stability. Both argued for managing emission to control losses. For his part, Litterman, referenced his work as chairman for the development of a report of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on managing climate risk. The report, of course, made ample use of Bloomberg funded modeling projects.

In a later interview about the investigation, Whitehouse zeroed in on climate risk and financial risk. “There’s a core underlying reason for the insurance problems that Florida’s experiencing right now and for the risks it faces,” Whitehouse said. “And that is the persistent failure to deal with the problem of climate change.”

This is wrong. The underlying problem is the failure of policymakers to inspire a critical debate about urban development and risk mitigation—and about the misguided investor risk perceptions that may be inflating insurance costs.

Food for thought.

Reforming Federal Land Laws, Too Difficult to Attempt?: Reflections on CU 2010 Land Law Conference

by

Rich J. noted yesterday that public land laws are antiquated, which reminded me of this CU Law School conference at the 40th Review of the Land Law Review.   At that time, the thoughtful and talented planner John Rupe and I helped our Regional Forester,  Rick Cables with this presentation.  This was during the period of the 2005-2008 Planning Rule. Many thanks to CU Law for keeping all this posted on their website.

John Rupe posted an excellent summary of the conference at TSW  here.

Here’s one paragraph from John’s post:

The 1970 report led to the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).  According to Charles Wilkinson, FLPMA was a textbook example of Congress taking the long view – carefully studying the problem through a commission, and then crafting a bill which addressed those concerns.  He noted that the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) was very different – it went through Congress in less than a year because of a timber cutting crisis.

The speakers at the conference generally concluded that today’s political environment makes it difficult to repeat a 1970-type commission.  Congress is too polarized.  We may be too impatient to repeat the process that took six years from 1964 to 1970.  There may not be a political sponsor like Wayne Aspinall, the Congressman from Colorado who pushed for the formation of the Commission as part of a 1964 compromise legislative package which enabled the package of the Wilderness Act.  In addition, the problems today with public land management may not be grabbing the attention of the public, more concerned with the economy and other pressing matters.

Hmm… “too polarized” 14 years ago.  I wonder (certainly I run in less political circles) if the idea of “we are too polarized” keeps us from taking steps, perhaps incremental, to hash out and perhaps heal disagreements.  Words themselves have power, I believe, to lay tracks in our consciousness.  I’d instead ask “how can we design a system to get away from polarization?”.   If we had started with a small effort in 2010, where might we be today?

We could start with “what behaviors would we like to see in the next Admin that could help with that? or “what would be a tiny step that could be taken to develop a bipartisan process to remove the most problematic aspects of the current “mess o’ statutes”.

Anyway here’s a link to the conference, it’s full of interesting powerpoints and videos.  Reflecting from 14 years on, we seem to have all the same issues.

Well, David Bernhardt (he of the Trump Admin) talked about oil shale, you don’t hear about that anymore.  But not much about renewable and transmission buildout, and minerals were not strategic at the time.

Particularly with the current pressure toward Monumentizing, including what seems to be a massive media campaign, I’d like to draw your attention to the thoughtful presentation on Monumentizing by Jim Rasband: The Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Decision-Making on Public Lands: National Monuments and Beyond.

There’s also a set of slides of that presentation, with some quotes people might want to borrow for their own presentations.  Note how the Solum quote is related a bit to our discussion earlier this week of litigation as policy setting.. rights talk rather than justice talk.  Anyway, take a look at anything at the conference that interests you and we can discuss below.

Farm Bill Update

by

I’m not following the Farm Bill, so it would be nice if a member of the TSW community would volunteer to keep us abreast of the latest. Here’s what came across my desk:

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

Chairman Thompson, House Ag Committee, released additional details related to Farm Bill reauthorization last Friday. While the release does not include bill text, a more detailed summary is now available at:

detailed_summary_-_pdf.pdf (house.gov)

 

While bill text is not yet available for review, there are several interesting provisions. Some of the notable items include:

 

  • Includes H.R. 1450 to authorize counties and tribes to retain and use timber sale receipts on land covered by the GNA agreement.
  • Includes H.R. 3562 to provide flexible housing partnerships to alleviate rural housing challenges and provide up to 100-year lease terms and renewals on administrative sites.
  • Reauthorizes and modernizes the Wood Innovation Grant Program, reduces the non-Federal match, and authorizes grants for hauling hazardous fuels reduction materials to locations that can utilize it. Reauthorizes and modernizes the Wood Innovation Grant Program, reduces the non-Federal match, and authorizes grants for hauling hazardous fuels reduction materials to locations that can utilize it.
  • Establishes a CE for high priority hazard tree activities.
  • Includes a Cottonwood Fix
  • Increases the threshold required to advertise timber sales on National Forest System land to reflect inflation.
  • Extends the authorization of Resource Advisory Committees and the Regional Forester appointment pilot program.
  • Provides the Forest Service direct hire authority for Job Corps graduates.

 

Stay tuned as actual bill text from the House Ag Committee could be available in the next week or so. You may also recall, Chairwoman Stabenow also released the following summary of her Farm Bill last week at:

Rural Prosperity and Food Security Section-By-Section (senate.gov)

 

Similarly, we do not have bill text from Senate Ag, but the summary includes the following notable provisions (among others):

  • Authorization for Lease of Forest Service Sites. Increases lease terms to 100 years.
  • Expands GNA to allow counties and Tribes to retain revenue received from the sale of timber. Allows authorized restoration activities in certain circumstances on non—Federal land.
  • Authorizes a pilot conservation finance program
  • Builds on the REPLANT Act by establishing dedicated staff for the Forest Service Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources program, expands technical assistance and workforce development training for nursery and tree establishment programs, and creates a grant program for State, Tribal, and private nurseries to improve nursery production capacity.
  • Expands the reach of the Wood Innovations Grant Program by reducing the match requirement
  • Establishes an Urban and Community Forestry Office within the Forest Service and a microforest grant program

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