A good tool for evaluating a major strategic shift for any large scale resource management philosophy is to put the process to a clear set of analytic questions:
Problem to be solved:
Friends of Plumas argue that a very small share (between 4 and 7% depending on what list they use at a specific presentation) of the Upper Feather River watershed is “Protected.” That includes Wilderness, Wild/Scenic River, National Park, and Research Natural Areas. They do not account for other categories of protection. For example: State Parks, Fish and Wildlife preserves, lands with conservation easements, lands under Williamson Act, wildlife preserves, timber production zones and other local, state, or federal classifications.
Similarly, they do not include the National Forest Lands of the Plumas, Tahoe, and Lassen National Forests that are managed under the Multiple Use/ Sustained Yield Act and National Forest Management Act with supporting protection of a long list of protective legislation (passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President) including:
Congress and the President mandated in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 that the Forest Service develop management plans for each National Forest. That process took years for each Forest to assemble the data for resource management strategies with extensive public involvement. The planning teams used that public, cooperating agency, and tribal input to develop alternatives and to evaluate those alternatives. The product of that work was put under intense scrutiny. Those who had issues with the outcomes were afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision to the Regional Forester. The Plumas completed that process in 1988 and underwent significant amendments including the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 1998 (including adoption of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act). The most recent amendment process (2010) was done to evaluate and develop and implement Public Motorized Vehicle Use Plan and ongoing Over the Snow Vehicle Plan. The 1988 plan and its amendments a adopt a series of Standards and Guidelines for the protection of each acre of National Forest land.
The question of there being an outdated plan might really be a lack of implementation of that plan in part stagnated by persistent appeals at the project level.
The only real question about what is “protected” VS “not protected” is the potential for land managers of the future to choose to relax protections in future forest plan updates. The reality is that future managers will likely adopt stronger protections unless science surfaces more clear direction.
THE RIGHT DECSION MAKER:
Friends of the Plumas Wilderness have offered themselves as the planner for new direction. Although this organization has said at public meetings that they don’t have a plan for the specifics of a land classification in a proposed “National Monument”, their web site says something different. They propose an additional 400,000 acres of classified “protection” and 100 miles of wild and scenic rivers.
They also propose a process that: One US Congress Representative (or one US Senator) must submit legislation to adopt the Upper Feather River National Monument. Once that has been submitted, the President can then proclaim National Monument Status.
The first problem here is that the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness is a special interest group with an obvious bias for resource management priorities built into their name and with a history of using the appeal process to force decisions to go their way and stall implementation of projects.
The second problem is the lack of transparency about what they are truly proposing and who is funding this effort and what conditions do these “anonymous donors” have for funding this effort. No doubt those deep pockets have been using “monkey wrench” tools to appeal and litigate their biased views of how the Forest should be managed and stall implementation projects.
The third issue is one of damage being done to our democracy. The National Forest Management Act, with the full debate in committee and on the floors of both houses, was adopted into law. That will of the people, in the most visible presentation of our constitutional design, will be bypassed by a Special Interest Group supported by one elected congressional representative and a President with a 42% approval rating. The environmental consequences (and determination of what uses will be allowed in the future) will be disclosed only after the evolution of a management plan designed to implement the priorities assembled by the special interest group. An astute observer referred to this process as the introduction of a Trojan Horse.
The Friends of the Plumas expound the value of bringing the knowledge of Native Americans to play in the active management of the resources, particularly by re-introduction of low intensity fire to promote forest health. Presuming that Native American representatives have that knowledge, it could be a simple matter of having the Plumas, Tahoe, and Lassen National Forest host a workshop where the knowledge could be transferred to the line officers, managers, and fuels specialist responsible for those actions. The workshops should include those responsible for the involved National and State parks. To maximize training value, representatives of Carb and the Air Resource’s Boards should be a part of the training.
RESPONSIBLE DECISION MAKING:
The final test of a good policy transition is to assure that the new direction is based on quality analysis of the problem at hand and the options for resolving the problem.
As outlined above, the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness has not defined a significant problem other than what they want to clandestinely change. The Friends of the Plumas Wilderness (a special interest group) is not the appropriate authority to propose a broad scale change in how the public lands are to be managed. Further, the executive order process is not an appropriate tool to change those classifications over the will of people as expressed by congress and the president who adopted the National Forest Management Act. Nor is it appropriate for these changes to be made behind the back of those that participated in the 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan and the subsequent amendments.
It would be appropriate for Friends of the Plumas Wilderness to lobby for an update to amend Plumas National Forest Plan (to address the circumstances leading to the major wildland fires of the last decade). It would also be appropriate for this group to work with the Forest Service to host a workshop with Native Americans with knowledge of how to use fire to restore forest health and to reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire.
It would be appropriate for our elected representative and Senators to appropriately fund the Plumas, Tahoe, and Lassen National Forest to address the watershed restoration needs of the Dixie, North Complex, and Beckwourth Complex fire scars and fund fuels treatments on areas that haven’t recently burned.
It would be appropriate for a Native American who has knowledge about how to re-introduce fire as a forest health tool, to bring that knowledge to the authorized land managers.
As a society, it would be appropriate for us to do a detailed analysis about what went wrong with the management of the northern Sierra National Forest that led up to tragedies like the North Complex, Dixie Fire, Beckwourth Complex and the other catastrophic fires of the last decade.
FOREST HEALTH ISSUES:
Very large portions of the Upper Feather River watershed have been severely damaged by wildland fire. The list of major fires in the last 30 years is long and covers much of the watershed. There are many variables that influenced how and why these fires burned as severely they did. There is no simple answer to this question. Each of the following factors (and probably more) come into play:
Rick Maddalena, Resident, Sierraville, CA (Upper Middle Fork Feather River)
- Is there a problem to be solved?
- Is the proponent of change the right party to solve the problem?
- Would it be irresponsible if the proponent did not solve the problem?
Problem to be solved:
Friends of Plumas argue that a very small share (between 4 and 7% depending on what list they use at a specific presentation) of the Upper Feather River watershed is “Protected.” That includes Wilderness, Wild/Scenic River, National Park, and Research Natural Areas. They do not account for other categories of protection. For example: State Parks, Fish and Wildlife preserves, lands with conservation easements, lands under Williamson Act, wildlife preserves, timber production zones and other local, state, or federal classifications.
Similarly, they do not include the National Forest Lands of the Plumas, Tahoe, and Lassen National Forests that are managed under the Multiple Use/ Sustained Yield Act and National Forest Management Act with supporting protection of a long list of protective legislation (passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President) including:
- National Environmental Policy Act
- Threatened and Endangered Species Act
- Migratory Bird Act
- Historic Preservation Act
- Antiquities Act
- Clean Air Act
- Clean Water Act
- Treaties and Tribal Relations agreements
- National Trails Act
- Wilderness Act (And California Wilderness Act of 1984)
- Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
- And a host of Civil Rights and Labor Laws that are less relevant to this discussion.
Congress and the President mandated in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 that the Forest Service develop management plans for each National Forest. That process took years for each Forest to assemble the data for resource management strategies with extensive public involvement. The planning teams used that public, cooperating agency, and tribal input to develop alternatives and to evaluate those alternatives. The product of that work was put under intense scrutiny. Those who had issues with the outcomes were afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision to the Regional Forester. The Plumas completed that process in 1988 and underwent significant amendments including the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 1998 (including adoption of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act). The most recent amendment process (2010) was done to evaluate and develop and implement Public Motorized Vehicle Use Plan and ongoing Over the Snow Vehicle Plan. The 1988 plan and its amendments a adopt a series of Standards and Guidelines for the protection of each acre of National Forest land.
The question of there being an outdated plan might really be a lack of implementation of that plan in part stagnated by persistent appeals at the project level.
The only real question about what is “protected” VS “not protected” is the potential for land managers of the future to choose to relax protections in future forest plan updates. The reality is that future managers will likely adopt stronger protections unless science surfaces more clear direction.
THE RIGHT DECSION MAKER:
Friends of the Plumas Wilderness have offered themselves as the planner for new direction. Although this organization has said at public meetings that they don’t have a plan for the specifics of a land classification in a proposed “National Monument”, their web site says something different. They propose an additional 400,000 acres of classified “protection” and 100 miles of wild and scenic rivers.
They also propose a process that: One US Congress Representative (or one US Senator) must submit legislation to adopt the Upper Feather River National Monument. Once that has been submitted, the President can then proclaim National Monument Status.
The first problem here is that the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness is a special interest group with an obvious bias for resource management priorities built into their name and with a history of using the appeal process to force decisions to go their way and stall implementation of projects.
The second problem is the lack of transparency about what they are truly proposing and who is funding this effort and what conditions do these “anonymous donors” have for funding this effort. No doubt those deep pockets have been using “monkey wrench” tools to appeal and litigate their biased views of how the Forest should be managed and stall implementation projects.
The third issue is one of damage being done to our democracy. The National Forest Management Act, with the full debate in committee and on the floors of both houses, was adopted into law. That will of the people, in the most visible presentation of our constitutional design, will be bypassed by a Special Interest Group supported by one elected congressional representative and a President with a 42% approval rating. The environmental consequences (and determination of what uses will be allowed in the future) will be disclosed only after the evolution of a management plan designed to implement the priorities assembled by the special interest group. An astute observer referred to this process as the introduction of a Trojan Horse.
The Friends of the Plumas expound the value of bringing the knowledge of Native Americans to play in the active management of the resources, particularly by re-introduction of low intensity fire to promote forest health. Presuming that Native American representatives have that knowledge, it could be a simple matter of having the Plumas, Tahoe, and Lassen National Forest host a workshop where the knowledge could be transferred to the line officers, managers, and fuels specialist responsible for those actions. The workshops should include those responsible for the involved National and State parks. To maximize training value, representatives of Carb and the Air Resource’s Boards should be a part of the training.
RESPONSIBLE DECISION MAKING:
The final test of a good policy transition is to assure that the new direction is based on quality analysis of the problem at hand and the options for resolving the problem.
As outlined above, the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness has not defined a significant problem other than what they want to clandestinely change. The Friends of the Plumas Wilderness (a special interest group) is not the appropriate authority to propose a broad scale change in how the public lands are to be managed. Further, the executive order process is not an appropriate tool to change those classifications over the will of people as expressed by congress and the president who adopted the National Forest Management Act. Nor is it appropriate for these changes to be made behind the back of those that participated in the 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan and the subsequent amendments.
It would be appropriate for Friends of the Plumas Wilderness to lobby for an update to amend Plumas National Forest Plan (to address the circumstances leading to the major wildland fires of the last decade). It would also be appropriate for this group to work with the Forest Service to host a workshop with Native Americans with knowledge of how to use fire to restore forest health and to reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire.
It would be appropriate for our elected representative and Senators to appropriately fund the Plumas, Tahoe, and Lassen National Forest to address the watershed restoration needs of the Dixie, North Complex, and Beckwourth Complex fire scars and fund fuels treatments on areas that haven’t recently burned.
It would be appropriate for a Native American who has knowledge about how to re-introduce fire as a forest health tool, to bring that knowledge to the authorized land managers.
As a society, it would be appropriate for us to do a detailed analysis about what went wrong with the management of the northern Sierra National Forest that led up to tragedies like the North Complex, Dixie Fire, Beckwourth Complex and the other catastrophic fires of the last decade.
FOREST HEALTH ISSUES:
Very large portions of the Upper Feather River watershed have been severely damaged by wildland fire. The list of major fires in the last 30 years is long and covers much of the watershed. There are many variables that influenced how and why these fires burned as severely they did. There is no simple answer to this question. Each of the following factors (and probably more) come into play:
- Persistent droughts and a warming climate
- Fire Exclusion and Fire Suppression Success
- Fuels accumulation and Limited Funding for Fuels Treatments
- Lack of salvage of fire and insect killed trees
- Unmaintained fuel treatments
- Depletion of logging and milling capacities
- Priority on single species needs (e.g. CA Spotted Owl)
- Lack of available suppression resources for these large stand replacing fires
- Fire Suppression contracting issues
- Issues funding co-generation facilities
- Smoke management issues (including public resistance to long periods of smoke in the air)
- Concerns for releasing carbon into the atmosphere
- Challenges filling vacancies (cumbersome personnel processes, housing cost, large numbers of vacancies)
- Pay discrepancies between federal firefighters and their counterparts in State and urban fire departments.
- Employee burnout and unfair and undeserved criticism
Rick Maddalena, Resident, Sierraville, CA (Upper Middle Fork Feather River)
