If you know anything about me, you know I’m big on locally led decision-making AND equally big on coordinating policy and projects between all levels of government. In order to do good things for the land you not only need willing landowners, you need strong conservation partners. Strong partners make for solid seating.

[California's unwillingness or inability to sustainably fund local on-the-ground efforts has been an insurmountable problem and will likely be for some time: the legs of the stool are there, though just barely. Conservation efforts in Idaho benefit from annual general fund allocations (to the Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the largest portion of which is rolled directly down to local districts), special conservation account funds, contributions from federal and other state agencies, and matching funds from counties.]

While the fellow at my interview said use of the three-legged stool analogy is not so common  any more, we’re working to bring it back. Compared to what I’ve seen in other states (not naming names, just sayin’…), Idaho doesn’t have so far to go.

One of the best things about working here is the opportunity to showcase locally-led, voluntary conservation projects being accomplished by farmers, ranchers, and community members. We’ve taken more than our share of hits because we don’t buy the schtick that conservation is primarily about creating and protecting wilderness and wildlife corridors. Balderdash. Conservation includes those things, but it’s also about good stewardship of the land, courtesy of ordinary private landowners like you and me. And courtesy of strong agency partnerships: three-legged stools.

Here’s an Idaho Farm Bureau video from 2009 about an award winning project. I’m not sure which agencies were involved, but it was likely a result of a three-legged stool: a nonregulatory local soil and water conservation district, assisted by a nonregulatory Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission (providing science-based technical ‘assistance and loan funding for irrigation systems and more), with additional assistance from a nonregulatory NRCS.

It’s what nonregulatory, incentive-based conservation success can look like. Some of the best conservation rests on three- legged stools. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTct8A2WTZc

Not only does forest thinning provide economic benefits to rural communities and reduce the amount of vegetative fuels for fires on public and private lands, but it yields another important benefit, as well: more water.

This article was previously published by California Farm Bureau Federation in Ag Alert on April 13, 2011. Thanks, Farm Bureau!

As the state looks for ways to meet ever-increasing water demands for a growing population and environmental needs, a representative from the California Forestry Association says the state should consider how much water is being transpired through the overly dense national forests of the Sierra Nevada.

California could have plentiful, quality water in the form of groundwater recharge and runoff if its public forests were well managed and restored to a healthy condition, said Steve Brink, vice president of public resources for the trade association, whose members include forest landowners and businesses that make forest products.

Brink made his remarks during the California Farm Bureau Federation 2011 Leaders Conference.

He said with properly managed forests and active forest thinning, not only will the state significantly reduce wildfires by 22 percent to 60 percent and have healthy watersheds that minimize sediment production, but it could also get back 1 million to 3 million acre-feet or more of additional water annually.

“So how much water is that? It’s the storage capacity of Lake Oroville,” he said, noting that the reservoir contains more than 3.3 million acre-feet of water. “You could almost fill up the equivalent of Lake Oroville if our national forests were managed.”

More than half of California’s water originates in the watersheds of its national forests, much of it in the Sierra Nevada. But lack of forest management and too much vegetation has contributed to reduced water flows in the state’s watersheds, particularly during dry years, he said.

“When we have a really dry year, it can be so dry that the water stress will be such that vegetation actually dies,” he said. “We had a couple of years here (in 2004 and 2007) where manzanita has died from water stress, and I thought manzanita was indestructible.”

He pointed out that in the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which is in Yosemite National Park and is a major water source for the San Francisco Bay Area, there has been an average of a 30 percent reduction in spring snowpack since the 1970s due to vegetation growth.

“And that means less groundwater recharge and runoff in the spring and summer months,” he said.

The Department of Water Resources estimates that some 53 to 54 inches of water are evaporated and transpired in the Sierra Nevada annually. The ratio of evaporation to transpiration is small when there is significant canopy cover on the soil, according to DWR.

A few forest studies, including one done in the Feather River watershed in May 2007, show that an increase of 20 percent to 30 percent in water yield can be expected from forest thinning, but such increases are “not sustained due to (forest) re-growth unless you keep after it,” he said.

There are 9.8 million acres of productive forestland within California’s national forests that’s not reserved, or that is not in the wilderness. That averages to about 93 bone-dry tons of biomass per acre, Brink noted.

Regional foresters would like to perform 500,000 acres of mechanical thinning and understory removal per year rather than the current 100,000 acres per year, he said. A typical thinning would remove 10 bone-dry tons of commercial trees and 13 bone-dry tons of surface and ladder fuels per acre. The growth rate after the thinnings is about 0.6 bone-dry tons biomass per acre per year, he added.

“Remember, the forest grows. And particularly after thinning, you spur growth,” he said. He calculates that with active forest thinning, the state could potentially yield 3.3 million acre-feet of water per year, about the amount of water stored in Lake Oroville.

There are other benefits to healthy national forests, he said, including a reduction in sediment rates and fewer wildfires. Costs to suppress those wildfires would also be significant, he added. In addition, thousands of new jobs in rural California counties could be created in actively managing the state’s national forests, he said.

(Ching Lee is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at clee.)

Rob and Sue Krentz

It’s no secret I have a soft spot for ranch and farm families who fight daily to maintain a traditional way of life and the ag industry. I’m especially concerned for ranchers and others on the US border with Mexico, folks like the Krentz family in Arizona.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one.

Sue Krentz is the widow of murdered rancher Rob Krentz (http://tinyurl.com/4q42vxp, http://tinyurl.com/3ousscl, and http://tinyurl.com/3kn858f ). I hope you’ll take some time to read the links and get to know Sue and her family.

I became acquainted with Sue over email. She told me that she and others are caught up in a nightmare. They are suspended between violence on the border and a firestorm of controversy over immigration policies and their enforcement (or lack thereof). We Americans should be able to separate our feelings on the two.

No matter your position on immigration policies and enforcement, if you have any measure of compassion you should be alarmed by what happened to Rob Krentz and his dog Blue, as well as the ongoing every day consequences of the illegal immigration of violent, lawless criminals.

Since Rob Krentz was murdered a year ago, there hasn’t been a whole lot of progress toward making the border safer, but several members of Congress are trying to address that.

The two bills that were recently introduced are:

• H.R. 1277 The Southern Borderlands Communication Act (introduced by Rep. Ted Poe of Texas on behalf of Congresswoman Giffords – link to bill) would improve cell phone service for better public safety on the border.

H.R. 1505 The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act  (by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah – link to bill) would allow Homeland Security to protect the border without violating environmental regulations other federal agencies are required to enforce. 

The cartels that have killed thousands near the border are the same cartels that send their foot soldiers north through cities and rural towns to grow marijuana in our national forests. It’s only a matter of time before they import their violent ways well beyond the border – there are some indications that’s already happening.

Shouldn’t we take a stand and insist Congress deals with border security now? Please let your local, state, and federal representatives hear from you on this.

But don’t quit reading here: there’s more.

Here’s a link to a good op ed in the Arizona Capitol Times (http://tinyurl.com/3eotrls ) called Changing scene along border leads to death, destruction — not protection by Steve Brophy, President of the Arizona Cattlegrowers’ Association.

And finally, below is a press release from the Public Lands Council about the need to strengthen border security. 

I’t time. Let’s do something now.

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE

Contacts: Mary Geiger, 202-879-9138 or mgeiger, Theo Dowling, 202-879-9135 or tdowling

WASHINGTON (April 15, 2011) – Jim Chilton, Arizona rancher and member of the Public Lands Council (PLC) and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), told members of Congress during an oversight hearing held jointly by the Government and Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations and the Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that inadequate security along the border between the United States and Mexico, especially on public lands, has put ranchers and their families living near the border in constant danger.

“We have been burglarized twice. Many of our neighbors have suffered similar loss of security and property. Our losses have been great and our sense of security in our own country has been severely damaged,” Chilton said. “The Border Patrol must control the border at the border so that citizens’ civil rights, property rights and human rights are protected. Ranchers along the border cannot have peace of mind until the border is secured.”

Chilton said environmental laws, including the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), have “unduly hampered” the ability of U.S. Border Patrol agents to control the border. He said he and many other ranchers have had challenges with federal land managers causing serious delays for the border patrol. According to Chilton, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) two mile wide and 50 mile long San Pedro National Conservation Area excludes any mechanical entry or exit resulting in a drug trafficker’s “dream path to enter Arizona and walk unhindered and hide in heavy vegetation for 50 miles. The only way the Border Patrol can patrol that contraband highway is on foot or horseback.”

U.S. Representative Rob Bishop (R-Utah) recently introduced H.R. 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, to help improve border security on public lands. The legislation would prevent the secretaries of the Department of Interior (DOI) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from impeding, prohibiting, or restricting the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to obtain operational control of the border. It gives DHS immediate access to federal lands, and allows the agency to waive certain policies preventing it from obtaining full operational control of the border.

PLC and NCBA support H.R. 1505.

“There are millions of acres of remote federal lands along our southern border where border patrol agents are unable to do their job because of misguided environmental policies,” said NCBA President Bill Donald. “Now, dangerous and aggressive drug and human traffickers are perusing the same lands our ranchers live and work on day to day. This bill would allow for the access and surveillance equipment border patrol agents need to protect these lands — and our members.”

John Falen, president of PLC, said while lands under management by the DOI and USDA are crucial to public lands ranchers’ livelihoods, ranchers are suffering huge losses on those lands along the southern border. Livestock stress and weight loss, destruction of fences, broken pipelines, water pollution, hazardous chemical use and dumping and destroyed forage, he said, are not the only damages caused by these drug operations.

“Drug traffickers are well armed. They use traps and aren’t afraid to harm ranchers who are only trying to go about their daily business,” he said. “This isn’t just costing our industry millions; it’s costing lives. We hope Congress recognizes the true lawlessness on our borders by passing this long overdue legislation.”

###

The Public Lands Council (PLC) has represented livestock ranchers who use public lands since 1968, preserving the natural resources and unique heritage of the West. Public land ranchers own nearly 120 million acres of the most productive private land and manage vast areas of public land, accounting for critical wildlife habitat and the nation’s natural resources. PLC works to maintain a stable business environment in which livestock producers can conserve the West and feed the nation and world.

If the lawsuit is successful, those miles we managed to hold onto could be lost. Not only that, but the next phase of the Travel Management Rule Plan (Subpart A) could be even more devastating to access and our local economy. 

Read on… and please go to the website and donate.

Stanislaus National Forest & Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe

From the  Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center website:

“On August 12, 2010, preservationist groups Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, The Wilderness Society and PEER [Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility - www.PEER.org says: "As a service organization assisting federal & state public employees, PEER allows public servants to work as "anonymous activists" so that agencies must confront the message, rather than the messenger."] filed suit challenging the Stanislaus NF travel plan adopted Nov. 12, 2009. The suit alleges claims under NEPA, NFMA and related law. Of particular note are claims that the Forest failed to properly define alternatives under NEPA, failed to properly analyze effects, failed to “minimize” OHV impacts, failed to properly designate a “minimum road system” and failed to comply with applicable forest plan direction. Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) indicating only those routes that are on the map are legal for travel.”

 The concept of  ‘minimizing OHV impacts can be particularly problematic due to the question of whose definition of ‘minimize’ would be adopted. The suit also targets the decision of the Forest Service regarding Subpart A, the analysis of the minimum, necessary road system needed in each forest. The question of how to define ‘need’ has never been answered. The CA4WDC and partners have filed for Defendant/Intervenor status to ensure that our members needs, and the needs of all forest visitors who enjoy motorized access, are being represented in this lawsuit. We have formed a coalition, and need everyone’s support on this critical issue.

A “copycat” lawsuit has been filed by the Center for Biological Diversity against the Bridgeport Ranger District of the Humboldt –Toiyabe National Forest  CA4WDC has now entered with our partners into this lawsuit, and are proud to be standing p for the rights of motorized recreation enthusiasts in California and Nevada. We have to quash these lawsuits as strongly as we can, and defend our right to motorized access.

What can you do? For a start, please donate to the Stanislaus Legal Defense Fund, go to www.cal4wheel.comfor a link to PayPal. Then email or call your county supervisor and inform him or her. Ask your elected representatives (local, state, and federal) to stand up for public access of all kinds because it’s your forest too.

The US Forest Service (USFS) has announced a series of Roundtable public meetings next week to explain and answer questions about the Draft 2011 Planning Rule (click here to see it) and comment process. Technically, no public comment will be permitted at the Roundtables, but creative public speakers could ask questions to highlight the need to tweak the Draft Rule before the final is issued. See the talking points below. :)

First of all, a little context. Planning rules are issued by the Chief Forester in Washington, DC. They guide every forest on how to interpret and implement the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). You’d think that rules would only need to be issued once, but changing agency values lead to changing interpretations and implementation practices. Some of them (like the last few iterations) have been struck down in federal court. This one will likely be no exception. The Planning Rule in effect currently dates back to 1982.

Here’s the info for the three California meetings. A nationwide schedule of public meetings can be found at: Meetings.

USFS Roundtable Meetings, March 21, 2011, 9 am to 12 pm

1. Wildland Fire Training & Conference Center, 3237 Peacekeeper Way, McClellan, CA 95652, for more info contact Deb Whitall at 707‐562‐8823;
2. Angeles National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, 701 North Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA 91006; and 
3. Shasta‐Trinity National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

Point ONE: Coordination Missing From Draft Rule

At the top of the list of my most important talking points is - no surprise - retaining local governments’ ability to coordinate government to government, as provided for in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and with great clarity in the 1982 Planning Rule’s Section 219.7.

The 1982 Rule’s Section 219.7 went missing from the Draft 2011 Planning Rule. Not good.

Quite a few Western counties sent in letters last year commenting that Section 219.7  (in its entirety) must be added to the new Rule. Some noted that the agency is actually out of compliance with the 1982 Planning Rule for not coordinating with them in development of the new Rule. The counties, Tuolumne included, got nowhere – though we were polite and respectful – following the USFS preferred method of “collaboration” (public comment).

For those new to this topic and my insistence on it, let me explain why coordination so important. USFS management decisions and actions impact access and multiple uses of public lands. Rural communities depend on resource management for public safety and economic wellbeing, residents have long-cherished traditions involving the lands, wildlife, and resources, and visitors spend money when they come to experience them. Restricted access and uses are serious threats to rural communities already facing assaults on many fronts to our existence, if not to our ability to thrive and provide living wage jobs for future generations.

Coordination doesn’t ensure that rural communities won’t be impacted, but it does ensure that all the potentially negative impacts to rural communities can be evaluated and mitigated if possible. It ensures a place for counties at the decision making table to negotiate better outcomes. Coordination is about process, not the substance or philosophies of the negotiations.

Counties weren’t alone. States were blown off too before California’s Governor (and former attorney general)  Jerry Brown sued the USFS for failure to coordinate on a roadless area decision. By the time the case settled last December, the USFS agreed to go back to the negotiating table, this time working with the state instead of dictating to it. 

While I’m no fan of designating more roadless areas, I’m a huge fan of the process of coordination. Brown’s case opened a door that hinged on the very same statute that requires the USFS to coordinate with counties. Sweet!

Yet despite my hopeful blog post last week, counties’ respectful requests to coordinate are still rebuffed.

Well folks, Jerry Brown wasn’t confused and neither am I. He didn’t back down and neither will I, nor others like Jerry and me. Sounds strange for this Republican to be grateful to our Democrat Governor, but I am. Now if he’d just require HIS state agencies to coordinate with counties!

So back to the USFS, if clear heads, public comments, pleasant conversations, and meetings with USFS brass haven’t gotten us anywhere, what’s the next step?

Continued publicity for sure, and reaching out to Congress. I’m working on both of them. But ultimately it may come down to litigation by counties fed up with scofflaw agencies and bureaucrats – nice though they may be. 

Radical organizations use the courts to get what they want while the rest of us stand outside the circle and watch in dismay and frustration. The same courts that have ruled in the interest of radical organizations’ interests have validated the process of coordination for the State of California and against the USFS. They can do no less for counties.

So now if counties are to best represent rural community interests, they must pony up for a lawsuit and – as my friend says, “Get some guts!” They must be willing to engage in respectful confrontation – both conversational and legal, if necessary. They must assert their legal authority to level a playing field that’s skewed toward those who have beaten the USFS in the courts.

The good news? There are counties readying lawsuits now. The bad news? It may take a lawsuit to move things forward.

But I digress.  I’m blogging about Roundtable meetings, talking points, and questions you can ask to make points to the USFS.

First and foremost, don’t forget to ask what they did with Section 219.7 of the 1982 Planning Rule and how the Draft 2011 Rule satisfies the mandates to coordinate with states, local governments, and Indian tribes in NFMA. When they answer, smile politely, but take notes. Then go tell your county supervisor.

Here’s a list of some other important talking points (for your question-asking-comment letter-drafting pleasure) that I received from the good folks at the Public Lands Council in Washington, DC. They’re in the trenches with us – please support them generously.

Public Lands Council 2011 Planning Rule Roundtable and Comment Talking Points

• The “viable population” requirement should not be included in the planning rules: The draft rule would require the Forest Service to “maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern within the planning area.” The term “maintain viable populations” does not occur in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). There is no scientific consensus on what level of population is “viable” or how it is to be “maintained”, so using these words will continue and likely increase the amount of lawsuits filed against the Forest Service. The planning rule expands the purview of the rule over all species, not just vertebrates (i.e. fungus, moss and plants).
• The rule is unduly cumbersome and focuses too much on process and procedure: Much of what is being put into the “rule” would be better placed in the Forest Service Manual or Handbook where it can more easily be adjusted if it is not workable. One of the objectives of the new rule is supposed to be that it is workable, affordable and will withstand court challenges so the agency doesn’t have to do it over again. Under a January 11, 2011 Executive Order signed by President Obama, rules are supposed to be made more cost effective, less burdensome and more flexible. The draft does just the opposite.
• The regulation effectively makes Forest Plan “guidelines” legally enforceable standards: The rule states that all projects “must comply” with the guidelines. This change throws away management flexibility and the Forest Service’s hard fought victories establishing that guidelines are discretionary—not mandatory.
• The draft rule ignores the appropriate role of multiple-use: Like many of the agency’s recent efforts, the draft rule fails to build on the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act and follow the requirements of National Forest Management Act. These are where the Forest Service’s authority comes from. Instead of launching off into areas like carbon sequestration and “spiritual sustenance”, the planning rule should focus on active land management uses such as timber, grazing and recreation.
• The requirement to maintain “the diversity of plant and animal communities” is the wrong approach: The rule should require that the Forest Service plan maintains existing habitat diversity, rather than focusing on measuring species populations. There should also be a focus on multiple-use objectives, as required under the NFMA; habitat diversity is one part of multiple-use objectives which should be in the rule.
• Requiring the use of the “best available scientific information” rather than agency expertise and available, relevant science will make decision making time consuming and vulnerable to litigation: The rule repeatedly requires the agency to rely on “best available scientific information” in planning. Sound science has an important role in Forest Service planning and management. Proving what science is “best” is likely to be time consuming and of little value, but will undoubtedly lead to lawsuits that will halt all progress. This wording seems to give away much that the agency gained in the 2008 Ninth Circuit en banc decision (Lands Council v. McNair) which says the agency’s expertise deserves deference.
• The “public engagement” requirement distances the decision-making process from the local area and renders the agency vulnerable to more litigation: The language requiring that the agency “shall encourage” public input creates an obligation to affirmatively gather public comment—and a legal question as to the legal threshold of encouragement. And even as the rule calls for greater “public input”, it weakens the existing requirement to coordinate forest planning with local government and their plans.
• The use of the pre-decisional objections process is good: Requiring those who don’t like a draft plan to object before the final plan is released allows the agency to take issues into account and make appropriate changes. Under the current appeals system, those who just want to stop a project don’t have to participate in trying to resolve the issue before the decision is made.

What we heard was disappointing, though Moore ultimately conceded the USFS would engage in coordination under Section 219.7 of the 1982 Planning Rule if counties insist. 

Counties must accept nothing less. Here’s why. Coordination is based on law and is: 

“… a formal collaborative process established by Congress to require federal land and resource agencies to give … local governments… a meaningful role in the decision making process… The ultimate goal… is consistency (marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity: free from variation or contradiction, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) between federal… and local plans, policies and actions…  Congress mandated coordination to protect local interests… and gives local elected officials meaningful input into federal agency management decisions to limit adverse impacts on their revenues and local economies… [it] requires agencies to work government-to-government with local officials and involves close communication, relationship-building, and sometimes—dispute resolution…”  Shepherd’s Crook’s Coordination Report 10/10/2010 

Moore’s idea of “working together” he admitted Wednesday in Sacramento, is actually cooperation under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed with California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) staff. This despite opposition among county supervisors to such an agreement.  

Cooperating agency status was defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as one way of fulfilling statutory requirements for cooperation between agencies.

I like Moore – he seems like a nice enough guy – and I’m not looking to pick a fight with CSAC and RCRC, both of which work hard to represent rural counties. But what’s right is right.

Rural counties and the people in our communities have already lost a lot and there is much more at stake. Refusing to coordinate and/or attempting to divert counties from coordinating with a federal agency when it’s clearly written into statute and the agency’s own rules is just wrong. It’s an affront to the counties and to the public that depends on county supervisors’ representation.

Moore has said he wants all his forests to look again at Travel Management Rule decisions relative to which roads should stay open and which should be closed. He has said that decisions are best made at the forest level by forest supervisors and counties working together.

A week ago Moore announced he’d been up to Redding to initiate that process with two Shasta County Supervisors. Shasta, coincidentally or not, is the county whose Board voted 5/0 to sue the USFS because it consistently refused to coordinate on the Shasta Trinity National Forest’s Travel Management Rule Plan. While I wasn’t there, I suspect what he did in Shasta County falls short of meeting his obligations under the 1982 Planning Rule (see below).

When pushed further, Moore admitted that rather than reopen Subpart B (which closed MANY miles of roads in the forest by decreeing them unauthorized and therefore closed), he plans to begin work on the second phase of the process – Subpart A – identification of the minimum necessary road system in each forest.  

A letter from the Wilderness Society and other environmental groups (including Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center - CSERC) last year gave Moore instructions on how Subpart A can and should be used to close more roads than were closed in Subpart B. 

Wilderness Society Letter 

The letter was leaked by an alarmed USFS employee whose supervisor laid it on his desk and said, “This is what we have to do now.”

A subsequent memo from Moore to his forests described the “top priority” process they would follow to finish Subpart A in 2012. Contrary to what was announced on Wednesday about local decision making, Moore’s memo stated: 

“… it is important for all of us to understand that Subpart A is an analytical process, and not a decision making process…” and “the Regional Office will describe the process framework to ensure a consistent approach…” 

Subpart A Update 

He must have changed his mind. 

Supervisors at our meeting on Wednesday pressed Moore for details and it paid off. We wrung a public admission from him that if counties request coordination under the 1982 Planning Rule, Section 219.7, he will allow forest supervisors to engage in that process. He had no choice. It’s the USFS’ own rule about how to conduct the coordination process. 

Though Moore has stated he doesn’t agree with the interpretation counties are using of coordination, it’s not clear what differences of interpretation could possibly exist. Here’s what the USFS has said it must do with counties (beyond what it states it must do to facilitate public participation with the general public and interest groups in Section 219.6): 

(a) The responsible line officer shall coordinate regional and forest planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of … local governments…

(b) The responsible line officer shall give notice of the preparation of a land and resource management plan, along with a general schedule of anticipated planning actions, to the official or agency so designated by the affected State (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). The same notice shall be mailed to all Tribal or Alaska Native leaders whose tribal lands or treaty rights are expected to be impacted and to the heads of units of government for the counties involved. These notices shall be issued simultaneously with the publication of the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement required by NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1501.7). 

(c) The responsible line officer shall review the planning and land use policies of … local governments… The results of this review shall be displayed in the environmental impact statement for the plan (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2). The review shall include–

(1) Consideration of the objectives of … local governments… as expressed in their plans and policies;
(2) An assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and policies;
(3) A determination of how each Forest Service plan should deal with the impacts identified; and,
(4) Where conflicts with Forest Service planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for their resolution.

(d) In developing land and resource management plans, the responsible line officer shall meet with the designated… representatives of … local governments,… at the beginning of the planning process to develop procedures for coordination. As a minimum, such conferences shall also be held after public issues and management concerns have been identified and prior to recommending the preferred alternative. Such conferences may be held in conjunction with other public participation activities, if the opportunity for government officials to participate in the planning process is not thereby reduced. 

(e) In developing the forest plan, the responsible line officer shall seek input from other… local governments… to help resolve management concerns in the planning process and to identify areas where additional research is needed. This input should be included in the discussion of the research needs of the designated forest planning area. 

(f) A program of monitoring and evaluation shall be conducted that includes consideration of the effects of National Forest management on land, resources, and communities adjacent to or near the National Forest being planned and the effects upon National Forest management of activities on nearby lands managed by other Federal or other government agencies or under the jurisdiction of local governments. 

[47 FR 43037, Sept. 30, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 29122, June 24, 1983] 

Seems pretty clear to me.

Counties, if you settle for anything less you do not have the role Congress and the USFS’ own Planning Rule intended you to have, nor the influence your constituents deserve.

Sean Curtis, long-time coordinator from Modoc County, plans to conduct a training on coordination for county supervisors (so they will not unknowingly be diverted into cooperating agency status and are prepared to coordinate effectively) and one for the grassroots public, as well.

Stay tuned for further details.

A California State Association of Counties workshop on coordination put on by Idaho attorney Fred Kelly Grant was the catalyst for my insistence that Tuolumne County’s Board of Supervisors (and other California counties) is entitled to a seat at the USFS’ decision making table.

It’s been more than a little contentious, but over the last four years the coordination effort gained considerable support in Tuolumne County and elsewhere in the nation. Ten California counties have initiated similiar efforts and more are considering it. Today, our combined efforts, several trips to California and Washington DC by Grant, and the controversy we engendered appear to have paid off.

Though we stopped short of describing the process Moore wants to initiate as formal coordination, what he said he hopes will happen sounds like coordination. He said he wants to see outcomes that work for rural communities and the environment. He also said that discussions should take place early in the process – but that what the process looks and performs like are best defined at the local level.

Most significantly, Moore’s announcement means that the relationship building and conflict resolution that counties have been asking the USFS for have received the green light. So for now, counties and communities should give the USFS and their forest supervisors a chance to make good on Moore’s word.

Apparently they’ve already begun. Moore said he and Shasta Trinity Forest Supervisor Sharon Heywood met with Shasta County last week to discuss issues the county raised on the Record of Decision for the Forest Travel Management Rule Plan. Other counties should soon hear from their forest supervisors. 

The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter what we call it – coordination, collaboration, whatever – it matters that county officials (who are elected and  directly accountable to the people) will be involved up front, representing the interests of their constituents, before decisions are made. It appears that will be the case.

I’ll blog more details within the next few days, but suffice to say our meeting today went well. I am cautiously optimistic.

Headquarters, UC Hopland Field Station

When I was a young I loved lambing season: I got to be with my Dad at his day job as a scientist for the University of California. Though I doubt he meant to, being around Dad during lambing taught me responsibility, compassion, and about life and death through a shepherd’s eyes.

The video below from the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) brought back memories that are especially meaningful now as my folks age, agriculture struggles to survive, and America grapples with identity and future.

My father Don Torell was a sheep rancher, but he was also an animal scientist at UC Davis’ experimental research facility, the Hopland Field Station. When we were young, my brother and I went to the Station with Dad during lambing season on Saturdays partially to give Mom a break, but also to help Dad.

Though lambing season is typically cold and stormy, we loved being at the Station with Dad. We’d walk quietly (usually) from one end of the barn to the other looking for signs that ewes were about to give birth: some needed help, others did fine on their own. We hiked into the surrounding pastures to gather ewes that had lambed outside during the night, usually in a storm. Dad handled them as little as possible, using a shepherd’s crook to gently “collar” and then carry them in a small, low cart with a long handle so skittish ewes would follow.

Once ewes gave birth, their lambs – singles, twins, and occasionally triplets – were weighed, branded (with a paint-like fluid) for record-keeping, their umbilical cords were treated with iodine, and watched closely to make sure they were nursing. Unfortunately, not every lamb and ewe lived. I hated that, but when it happened, we took dead lambs from frantic mothers and offered orphan lambs in exchange. Dad would tie the skin from a dead lamb on an orphan. It worked sometimes.

We bottle-fed rejected orphans and the weak and sick lambs in the barn office. Some we took home for intensive care and feeding until they could survive outside. Many didn’t make it. Those that did were pets for awhile.

The video below takes me back to a time when a much-admired father patiently taught two rowdy kids about sheep and about life and death. It reminds me of joy and sorrow,  ewes and lambs, and drinking Sanka while coaxing orphans to take a bottle next to a very small electric space heater in the chilly barn office. Good memories.

Thanks to ASI, the Indart family, and many others who carry on in agriculture though it’s never been harder. Despite all America’s troubles today, when I remember lambing I am reminded that there are farmers and ranchers still out there contributing to society and teaching new generations of kids important life lessons.

It’s especially then that I have hope for the future.

Indart – Lambing in Clovis CA from Kendall Media Group on Vimeo.

Amy’s right, you know. The land does belong to all of us. We’re just going to have to learn how to get along and how to share.

Amy's Jeep

FREEDOM*
Amy Granat, January 2011

*Freedom’s not just another word for nothing left to lose. (apologies to Kris Kristofferson)

Americans cherish our freedoms, we have always reveled in the opportunities our country guarantees it’s citizens. We have designed our government around the following words written in the Declaration of Independence; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Beautiful and poetic words, even more so considering the uncertain times in which they were written by men striving and hoping for freedoms they had yet to experience and could only imagine. But after a life lived under an unfair system of government these men decided to define this new country by the highest of principles, making sure these words would stand the test of time, and remain a guideline for future generations.

As a child I remember wondering out loud (while I had to memorize this passage for class) why “the pursuit of Happiness” was included in the above sentence because it seemed less important than the lofty ideals of Life and Liberty.

At the time I was told these words were included in the Declaration because the authors understood that Americans could not, and should not, live without Happiness. They wanted to insure that future generations understood the “pursuit of Happiness” is vital to our very existence.

These words in the Declaration of Independence have served as a beacon for many years, but the true meaning of the words has become distorted over time, shaped to the whims and wants of others. The definition of “pursuit of Happiness” has become rewritten by the courts, and redefined by groups who try to limit the manner in which we seek enjoyment in this country.

All those that enjoy and/or depend on motorized access have felt the sting of limitations placed on our sport, the inability to access areas previously open, the constant vigilance required to keep these opportunities viable, and the ‘pursuit of Happiness’ available to all Americans. Traditional sports such as hunting and hounding have become vilified, while rural communities suffer from limitations placed on recreation, tourism and industry.

Concepts that have no real definition or purpose such as ‘quiet recreation’ are suddenly getting recognition in the courts and are being interpreted as preferable at the very real expense of thousands of Americans who enjoy other forms of recreation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”, should be words of freedom, not words of limitation.

These words hold a power we have yet to use to it’s fullest but have no choice but to employ in our efforts to return to our ‘roots’. By looking back we gain the power to move forward and remind our fellow Americans of the strength in these concepts and those guarantees granted us as citizens of this country.

We will have to return these concepts to the forefront of our political scene, understanding that none of us have the power alone to turn back the hands of time and recognizing that our differing viewpoints are actually a strength.

As Americans who cherish our history, we can take lessons from our forefathers to move forward as one, secure in the knowledge that we are fulfilling the very goals set before us by the founders of our country to insure the equal “pursuit of Happiness” to all Americans.

Too often we have been hampered in our efforts by not seeking the advice and knowledge of others, or forging ahead without a shared vision. Working together towards a common goal is often not easy, and can be fraught with uncertainty and misunderstanding. Sometimes we create exclusivity among our ranks, pushing away others who may not outwardly appear the same, not recognizing we all strive for the same ‘pursuit of Happiness’.

There may be many roads to success; some individuals or groups choose different avenues, all the while still working towards our common goals. But in the end, remaining true to our ideals, we will meet as equals to celebrate in each other’s success.

“….With certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

These are precious words, words to honor, and words that we fight to protect. They represent our history as Americans and our future as we continue to fight for our right to pursue our ‘Happiness’. When one right is taken away, all our rights are threatened.

At the present time we may feel like a small segment of the population trying to defend the right to enjoy our forests and our deserts, but we can join together with others of like mind, reminding our politicians of our shared history, turning our country back to the ideals on which we were founded. We have proven again and again throughout our history that our American values, those freedoms we cherish are worth fighting to keep.

Our current battle is no different, it continues in our proud American tradition, fighting for Freedom, fighting for our right to recreate as we choose.

Balderdash. That’s spin, pure and simple. Mama always said if you want to know what someone’s up to, pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

Salazar’s words belie his actions.

But let me tell you right up front, he may have himself a little legal problem: the Federal Lands Management Planning Act, aka FLPMA  (43 U.S.C. 1712), which requires the Secretary of the Interior:

“In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall… coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located… and of or for Indian tribes… In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands…”

Here’s the only input Salazar admits to getting in his “Letter from the Secretary” on page three of  the Plan (see link, below):

“This Plan presents a new vision for the Department and its bureaus and offices, and incorporates input from tribes, Congress, Federal employees, citizens, and organizations.”

Whoops… Seems he’s forgotten to coordinate with states and local government. Congress mandated in FLPMA that Salazar has to coordinate with them before coming up with this Plan. Someone ought to call him on that. Guess I just did.

So that made me wonder. Since he didn’t get “meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed”, let alone examine other land use plans to attempt to attain consistency with them,  to whom is Salazar transparent and accountable?

Not states, local government, and not mainstream America. That’s for darn sure.

Press Release

Strategic Plan Provides Blueprint for 21st Century Department: Emphasizes America’s Great Outdoors, Commitments to Indian Nations, Science, Sustainable Development, Ethics and Accountability

01/26/2011

Contact: Kendra Barkoff (DOI) 202-208-6416

WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today released the Department’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2016, outlining the Department’s goals for America’s Great Outdoors, commitments to American Indian communities and responsible natural resource development. The five-year plan also emphasizes the Administration’s commitment to stronger science-based decision-making, higher ethical standards for employees as well as greater transparency and accountability to the American public (emphasis added).

“This blueprint provides a vision for a 21st Century Department,” said Salazar, who outlined the plan in remarks to Interior employees at an All-Hands Town Hall at Interior Headquarters. “It sets out mission priorities and guides our investments and allocation of resources for stewardship of America’s Great Outdoors, sustainably managing natural resources and strengthening our nation-to-nation relationship with American Indian Tribes and Native Alaskans. The plan also underscores our focus on enhanced safety for offshore energy development, stronger environmental protection and support for renewable energy technologies.”

“Change can be difficult but when you have good employees, the difficult becomes the possible,” said Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget Rhea Suh. “Interior has great employees so I know we’re going to succeed. I’m very proud of the guidance we have presented because this Department’s missions are extremely important and highly relevant to the Nation and the American people.”

The Department’s programs support about $370 billion in economic activity each year. In terms that cannot be translated into dollars and cents, Interior offers unparalleled recreational opportunities in America’s national parks, wildlife refuges and other public areas, protects the Nation’s monuments and priceless landscapes, conserves wildlife and fisheries, preserves and interprets cultural sites that tell America’s story and manages vital water and energy resources.

The plan contains five mission goals that capture the Department’s overarching responsibilities for: stewardship of natural and cultural resources and providing quality visitor experiences to public recreational areas; the sustainable management of these lands and associated resources to help meet the Nation’s needs for energy, minerals and water; advancing the nation-to-nation relationships with 565 federally-recognized tribes and meeting commitments to Insular Areas; providing a scientific foundation for decision making; and building a 21st Century Department.

The last two goals were advanced significantly earlier this year when Interior became the first federal agency to adopt a Secretarial Order mandating that scientific integrity would be the hallmark for the agency and all activities it, or anyone working for it, undertook. The new policy, which will be codified in the Department Manual to ensure compliance by all employees, clearly affirms that Interior employees — political appointees and career staff alike — will never suppress scientific or technological findings or conclusions.

The policy covers all departmental employees when they engage in, supervise or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate information resulting from scientific activities, or use this information or analyses in making agency policy, management or regulatory decisions.

The plan also communicates short-term goals that are a priority focus for Interior’s efforts, including renewable energy development to promote the new energy frontier, water sustainability and conservation, climate change adaptation, youth in natural resources, and improvements in community safety in American Indian Country.

A set of principles that capture the Administration’s commitment to core values and high ideals is included in the plan. Foremost among those is ensuring high ethical standards, which is vital to maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of government. The Department will conduct its business with impartiality and hold people accountable by promoting transparency, accountability and efficiency, and will itself expect to be held accountable.

Interior’s strategic plan will guide the Department’s efforts to integrate activities across a set of unique and diverse bureaus and offices, to collaborate with stakeholders, and to focus the efforts of its 70,000 skilled employees on a set of priority accomplishments. While the statutory mission of Interior has not changed with the release of this plan, the blueprint evolved to reflect the priorities of President Obama and Secretary Salazar. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act, strategic plans cover a five-year period and are updated at least every three years.

The revised plan was communicated to internal and external stakeholders, the general public and tribal communities, all of whom had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Once all comments were received and reviewed, the plan was finalized for publication.

Secretary’s remarks: www.doi.gov/news/speeches/All-Hands-Address-Salazar-2011-Jan-26.cfm

Strategic Plan: http://www.doi.gov/bpp/data/PPP/DOI_StrategicPlan.pdf

###