Alert Reminder — National Planning Rule Region 5 Round Table April 6, 2010

Here is another reminder that the National Planning Rule Region 5 Round Table will be tomorrow  April 6, 2010.  For the Agenda Go here.

Remember that this Round Table, while important for ensuring tribal comments in the drafting of the Draft Planning Rule does not qualify as consultation.  This is the first of multiple opportunities to contribute comments and insight into the development of the Rule. Likewise, Tribes still have an opportunity to officially consult on a government to government basis with the Forest Service.

The National Planning Rule sets out what priorities and issues are to be addressed in Forest Management Plans as well as some procedural aspects for how those are accomplished.  Specifically the Rule identifies the minimum items that must be included in a Forest Management Plan, it spells out when and how plans are revised or amended, who makes decisions regarding Plans, how the public is involved, what types of analysis, assessments and evaluations will need to be made for plan decisions, how appeals can be used to address objections to the plans, and how plans affect projects.[1]

The following bold statements are the priorities and issues that are being discussed as the minimum priorities for Forest management plans.  Below are topics of discussion based on conversations we have had with Tribal elders, leaders, members and Governments. These are not recommendations or all inclusive statements but merely suggestions on some types of discussions that may fall under the specified topics.

1. Land management plans could address the need for restoration and conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of threats.
Discussion Topics:

• Need for coordination and consultation with Tribal governments and acknowledge Traditional tribal practices (gathering, land management/stewardship, etc.)
• Holistic approach to ecosystems protection (plant, water, species).
• Look to traditional methods of restoration and conservation (prescribed burns) to improve ecosystem resilience.
• Improve and  increase native plant populations.

2. Plans could proactively address climate change through monitoring, mitigation and adaptation, and could allow flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and incorporate new information.

Discussion Topics:

• Need for coordination with Tribal governments and acknowledge Traditional tribal practices (gathering, land management/stewardship, etc.)
• Coordinate with Tribes and tribal organizations willing to share tribal knowledge regarding plant growth, and animal activity to gauge change in seasons.
• Coordinate plant management with traditional tribal practices to accommodate changes in traditional gathering times and locations based changes in growing cycles.

3. Land management plans could emphasize maintenance and restoration of watershed health, and could protect and enhance America’s water resources.
Discussion Topics:

• Need for coordination with Tribal governments and acknowledge Traditional tribal practices (gathering, land management/stewardship, etc.)
• Coordination of efforts across jurisdictions to comply with water and other environmental regulations.
• Holistic approach to ecosystem care (lands, watersheds, waters, etc.)
• Look to traditional methods of restoration and conservation (prescribed burns) to improve ecosystem and watershed resilience.
• Coordinate with Tribes to improve native plant populations for watershed management.
• Plans should include in their scope of minimum issues, increased efforts to consult with Tribes regarding culturally important areas and resources including meadows.  (Could include the reduction or revocation of access for OHV use in important meadow areas, improve native plant populations in meadows, allow for removal of invasive species like large diameter pine or other trees in meadows, greater opportunities for prescribed burning in meadow areas to restore health and improve resiliency.)

4. Plans could provide for the diversity of species and wildlife habitat.

Discussion Topics:

• Need for coordination with Tribal governments and acknowledge Traditional tribal practices (gathering, land management/stewardship, etc.)
• Holistic approach to ecosystem care (lands, watersheds, waters, etc.).  Look to traditional methods of restoration and conservation (prescribed burns) to improve ecosystem and watershed resilience. For example prescribed burns improve the health of trees used by certain species for nests.  Meadow restoration improves water quality downstream for fish and amphibian species which provide food to larger species it also an important component to various ecosystems. (these examples would be more applicable in Project based discussions, but demonstrate the importance of prioritizing tribal collaboration at the planning level.

5. Plans could foster sustainable national forest lands and their contribution to vibrant rural economies.

Discussion Topics:

• Plans could prioritize opportunities for local/rural businesses contracting on forest restoration work.
• Greater coordination with Tribes regarding crew training and hiring.
• Plans would include coordination of efforts to develop sustainable wood processing businesses: For example wood chip production, or biomass facilities.
• Prioritizing the development by all forests of forest restoration contracting that is not primarily dependent on the value of large diameter wood removed from the forest.

6. Land management planning could involve effective and pro-active collaboration with the public.

Discussion Topics:

• Public collaboration should occur after Tribal notice and opportunity to consult, coordinate and collaborate.
• Early tribal coordination permits assessing potentially important cultural sites, assessing tribal interests, and tribal practices that are beneficial to project and plan development.
• Need for coordination with Traditional tribal practices (gathering, land management/stewardship, etc.)
• Planning Rule should acknowledge and defer to regional planning rules and priorities. For Example the Sierra Nevada Framework

7. Plans could incorporate an ‘all-hands’ approach by considering the relationship between national forest lands and neighboring lands.

Discussion Topics:

• Public collaboration should occur after Tribal notice and opportunity to consult, coordinate and collaborate.  Tribes should also be consulted, coordinated, and collaborated with as early as possible preferably before local and state governments.
• Coordination of efforts across jurisdictions to comply with water and other environmental regulations.
• Planning Rule should acknowledge and defer to regional planning rules and priorities. For Example the Sierra Nevada Framework

8. Plans could be based on the latest planning science and principles to achieve the best decisions possible.

Discussion Topics:

• Latest Planning science and principles should acknowledge the value and relevance of traditional Tribal knowledge and practices.
• Planning Rule should acknowledge and defer to regional planning rules and priorities. For Example the Sierra Nevada Framework –Native American Relations.

[1] In contrast Land Management Plans discuss multiple goals and objectives, they assess what standards and guidelines will apply with the management plan area, they designate management areas (i.e. zoning for different types of management methods), timber designation, wilderness designations,  and what types of monitoring and evaluations are required to review the success of the plans.

Read Full Post »

Recorded Beetle “songs” could aid in Bark Beetle infestations

Researchers in Northern Arizona believe that recorded aggression calls from the bark beetles could be used as a method of preventing beetle infestations.   The sounds make the bark beetles move from the location as if they are trying to avoid another beetle, not only do they relocate they stop eating away at the trees, stop burrowing and stop mating.

Usually bark beetle numbers are kept down when they are killed off during cold winter temperatures. Bark beetle infestations have become a significant problem for forests in the west in the last decade, many believe  due to increasing temperatures that allow the bark beetles to survive during the winter and thus cover more territory.

For the original story go to: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/02/09/20100209env-beetles0209.html

Read Full Post »

Forest Service to Implement Action Plans for Climate change

Below is a letter from Chief Tidwell calling for the development of actions plans consistent with the Forest Service’s 2008 Climate Change Framework.  The regions are required to have these action plans completed by March 2010.  It is likely that the Climate Change Framework and the resulting actions plans will affect Forest Management Plans.

Forest Service Washington Office 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC  20250

America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1300 Date: November 20, 2009

Subject: Responding to Climate Change: Developing Integrated Plans for Landscape Conservation

To: Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs and

WO Directors

Responding to the challenges of climate change in providing water and water-related ecosystem services

is one of the most urgent tasks facing us as an agency.  History will judge us by how well we respond to

these challenges.  Climate change is dramatically reshaping how we will deliver on our mission of

sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands for present and

future generations.  The most vulnerable and pivotal ecosystem services being affected by climate change

are related to water.  U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack’s vision for the

Nation’s forests and grasslands directs the Forest Service to deal assertively and collaboratively with

climate change and water on high priority landscapes.  Addressing climate change and water through

integrated landscape conservation must become a fundamental part of our leadership and must shape how

we work with others to sustain forests and grasslands.

In October 2008, you received the Forest Service’s Strategic Framework (the Framework) for Responding

to Climate Change (version 1.0).  The Framework provides the vision, guiding principles, goals, and

recommended actions for pursuing the Agency’s mission in a rapidly changing climate

(http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/).  The Framework guides the integration of climate change into the

programs, policies, processes, and partnerships of the Agency.

We will use the Framework to guide the development of landscape conservation strategies and action

plans. Our task now is to translate the Framework into our day-to-day operations.  We need to do this in a

coordinated way, so that we can most effectively use the strengths of our dispersed management system

to engage our publics and partners in collective efforts that will make a difference.

We need to develop, document, and pursue aggressive and well-coordinated landscape conservation

action plans for specific geographic areas and major landscapes.  I am asking Regional Foresters, Station

Directors, and the Northeastern Area (NA) Director to work together to prepare joint Area-specific action

plans.  Most Regions and Stations have already been working together on climate action strategies.  I am

asking you to expand these efforts into full-blown Regions, Stations, and Area (R/S/A) action plans for

landscape conservation, organizing them around the goals and actions contained in the Framework and

around the all-lands concepts of landscape conservation, addressing water and water-related services as a

fundamental outcome set.

Strategies and plans should include collaborative landscape scale efforts already underway including

those in Secretary Vilsack’s priority landscapes. We suggest the following R/S/A partnerships:

• Eastern – Northern Station, Region 9, NE Area, and Forest Products Lab (FLP) (Note: As a

national lab, FPL could be a part of other R/S/A strategies)

• Southern – Southern Station, Region 8, and IITF

• Interior West – Rocky Mountain Station and Regions 1, 2, 3, and 4

• Pacific Northwest –  Pacific Northwest Station and Regions 6 and 10

Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs  2

and WO Directors

• Pacific Southwest and Pacific Islands – Pacific Southwest Station and Region 5

These plans should include desired outcomes, strategies, and specific actions for each of the seven

Framework goal areas and a description of the joint governance structure for the partnership including

points of contact who will work with the Washington Office.  The draft plan at this stage should be no

more than 20 pages in length, although it may contain appendices.

These plans should, at a minimum, articulate how elements and actions of the Agency’s Framework and

principles of watershed restoration and protection will be addressed together in the geographic area and

how they will be integrated into land management plans, unit business plans and performance

management systems.  A range of ecosystem services can be considered or even emphasized, but water

should be treated as a fundamental outcome of every plan.  The Agency’s Framework should be used as a

guide, but your R/S/A partnerships should develop integrated plans based on what is feasible and

appropriate to the Regional and local challenges and opportunities of the changing climate.

The plans should seize opportunities to integrate activities and be innovative.  They should become

blueprints for integrating climate change and watershed management.  They should use climate change as

a theme under which to integrate and streamline existing national and regional strategies for ecological

restoration, fire and fuels, forest health, biomass utilization, and others.  They should also address priority

landscapes and consider the use of “model landscapes” or “model watersheds” to create showcases for

integration, innovation, experimentation, demonstration, and collaboration.  These plans should address

how you will work with other agencies, organizations, and other partners in these landscapes and

throughout the area to tackle climate change and watershed restoration issues. They should also articulate

how science and management will interact to adapt to changing conditions and apply newly created

knowledge in the future.

A Climate Change Executive, soon to be named by me, will work with the Executive Leadership Team

and the National Leadership Council to guide the overall implementation of the Framework through the

landscape conservation plans.  In the meantime, please consult with David Cleaves, current Executive

Sponsor from the Climate Council, on help you will need from the Washington Office in developing these

climate/water strategies and landscape conservation action plans.

Submit a draft of your joint R/S/A landscape conservation action plan by March 1, 2010.

If you have questions about the action plans outlined in this memo or have suggestions for other R/S/A

partnerships, please contact David Cleaves, Associate Deputy for Research and Development, at

dcleaves@fs.fed.us or 202-205-1702.

/s/ Thomas L. Tidwell

THOMAS L. TIDWELL

Chief

Read Full Post »

USDA News Release on Forest Health Protection

Release No. 0430.09

Contact:

Office of Communications (202) 720-4623

AGRICULTURE SECRETARY VILSACK ANNOUNCES ECONOMIC RECOVERY PROJECTS FOR FOREST HEALTH PROTECTION

78 projects in 20 States and the District of Columbia will receive a total of $89 million to address problems caused by fire, insects, invasive species and disease

WASHINGTON, September 9, 2009 — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for forest health protection projects. These 78 projects will receive almost $89 million and are located on forested lands in 30 states. This funding will be used to restore forest health conditions on Federal, State, and private forest and rangelands recovering from fires, forest insects and disease outbreaks. These conditions weaken affected lands and threaten the benefits these lands provide, including clean water, clean air, habitat for wildlife, resistance to wildfire, and recreational opportunities for the public.

“These Recovery Act projects will put people to work and advance the Obama Administration’s vision for a balanced and cooperative approach to forest management that will provide for public health and safety by restoring forestlands and rangelands damaged by insects, disease, and invasive species,” said Vilsack. “Proper forest management helps protect our forests for the benefit of current and future generations by restoring the vitality and productivity of the land.”

These Recovery Act funds will be used to complete high priority projects to restore forest health and resiliency by reducing insect and disease problems. Among the projects announced today will be efforts to thin understory trees and control spread of pests, which will reduce the risk of massive forest die-offs. Epidemic insect outbreaks, such as hemlock woody adelgid, Asian longhorn beetle and bark beetles have killed large expanses of forests and threaten to kill more. Additionally, workers will undertake efforts to control the spread of invasive plants by hand and with machinery, thus protecting and restoring healthy ecosystems. Invasive plants such as Cogan Grass, leafy spurge and cheatgrass threaten ecosystems by out-competing and displacing native plants.

Finally, the funds will also help provide technical and financial assistance for care of lands owned by States, local governments, private organizations, and private individuals. These activities will protect highly valued forested areas, reduce the risks of vegetation mortality, increase landscape resilience, and prevent future disease and insect outbreaks.

For a list of the Projects see News Release

Read Full Post »

Full transcript of Vilsack’s News Release and related links.

The Forest Service just published the full transcript of Tom Vilsack’s 8.14.2009 News Release.  There are two somewhat lengthy introduction speeches, so we have  posted  just what Vilsack said below.

Additionally, Chief Tidwell from Forest Service prepared a video response to Vilsack’s release that can also be found on the Forest Service website.  You may notice (we did) that Tidwell neglected to  mention the Forest Service Trust obligations to Indian Tribes.

Still no word on how these policy changes will affect Sierra Nevada Tribes and the Land Resource Management Plan revisions, but we will keep you updated.

– Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack: Thank you very much.  I appreciate it.  [Applause]  Thank you all.  Thank you.  Thank you.  [Applause]  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you for the kind introduction, but more importantly, thanks you for the leadership that you personally have provided on behalf of America’s forests.  You’ve been, I think, one of the most important champions of forests in this country and in the House of Representatives. You provided leadership in terms of funding our efforts to fight fires and our stewardship activities.  And we all owe you a debt of gratitude, so thank you for being here today, and thank you for that kind introduction.  I also want to thank and acknowledge Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen, who is also an environmental leader and leading the effort here in Washington State. Governor, I want to thank you for being here. Please give my regards to Governor Gregoire, a good friend of mine.  The congressman didn’t really have to remind me of the agricultural achievements of the state of Washington. Governor Gregoire was in Washington with a delegation not so long ago, and I got a full briefing, congressman. Trust me.  And I also want to acknowledge a couple of our friends from the state legislature.  State Senator Brian Hatfield is here with us and State Representative Brian Blake is a former member of the Iowa legislature. I appreciate the role that the state legislatures play in environmental protection and in protecting our natural resources.  So we thank you for being here. And I want to acknowledge that Mr. Kelly Fox, who is president of the Washington State Council of Firefighters, is also with us today.  And I do want to take this opportunity, which I have not had a chance to, to publicly thank Ann Bartuska for her extraordinary leadership and work during this period of time and changing administrations.  Ann, you’ve done a great job.  You’ve been a great friend.  You’ve provided us a lot of wise council.  Would you please stand so we can acknowledge your efforts?  [Applause]  Well, it is certainly a pleasure for me to be here in Washington state, home to six of our national forests and to millions of acres of state, tribal, and private forest lands.  It’s particularly appropriate that we are in the home state of the forest named for our first Chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot.  He gave us a guiding principle still relevant today when he defined conservation. And I quote, “As foresighted utilization, preservation, and/or renewal of forests, waters, land, minerals, for the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time.”  A healthy and prosperous America relies on the health of our natural resources, particularly our forests.  America’s forests today supply communities with clean and abundant water, shelter wildlife, help us mitigate and adapt to climate change.  Forests can also help generate rural wealth through recreation and tourism, through the creation of green jobs, and through the production of wood products and energy.  They are too a source of cultural heritage for Americans and American Indians alike.  And they are our national treasure, requiring all of us to protect and preserve them for future generations. Now, our new administration offers an opportunity for a new vision, a vision that will both guide the policies and the approach of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service towards forest conservation and management, a vision to address the challenges we face and to make the most of our opportunities to conserve and restore our forests.  Our national forests are an enormously important environmental and economic asset.  So too are our nonfederal forests, our state, tribal, and private forest lands.  President Obama has made clear his interest in conserving our natural environment, and I intend to take that responsibility very seriously and to devote the time necessary to do it right.  And I also know our new forest chief, Tom Tidwell, shares that commitment.

You know, I like to call our USDA an every way, every day department, because we do so many things each day to touch Americans’ lives, from helping farmers to providing affordable housing to promoting clean energy.  An every day, every way department, USDA helps American Farmers and ranchers provide a sufficient, safe, and nutritious food supply for all Americans.  But our farmers and ranchers are also vitally important stewards of our working lands to ensure that in addition to food and fiber, those lands provide clean water and preserve wildlife habitats.  In the same vein, our forests and our forest landowners provide more than wood products.  Our forests too are sources of clean water and home to wildlife habitat.  Let me just give you one measure often overlooked of how important America’s farms, ranches, and forests are to every American.  It is America’s forests, farms, and ranches that provide 87% of the surface supply of drinking water in America.  Let me repeat that.  It is our forests, our farms, and our ranches that provide 87% of the surface supply of drinking water in America.  When Americans turn on the faucet, most don’t realize the vital role that our rural lands and especially our forests play in ensuring that clean and abundant water flows out of that faucet.  So while some may think it odd that I give a major speech on forests in a major urban area like Seattle, I do so in order to emphasize this important point.  That is, while most Americans may live in urban areas, most of us are also dependent upon rural lands, particularly forest lands for clean water and a healthy climate.  For these reasons, conserving our forests is not a luxury.  It is, in my view, a necessity.  Yet America’s forests today are threatened like never before.  Climate change, catastrophic fires, diseases and pests have all led to declining forest health.  We’re losing our privately owned working forest lands to develop and fragmentation at an alarming pace.  All of these changes have enormous impacts on drinking water, greenhouse gas emissions, the climate, local economies, and wildlife and recreational opportunities.  Notwithstanding these trends, we have enormous opportunities.  And one example is climate change, for it will create new markets for carbon storage and biomass energy which ought to significantly bolster sustainable forest management and forest restoration.  Unfortunately, the debate about the future of our forests and our forest policy has been highly polarized for a long time.  I don’t think I need to remind anyone in Washington state about the debates surroundings, clear-cutting, and other forestry issues.  But given the threats that our forests face today, Americans must move away from polarization.  We must work and must be committed to a shared vision, a vision that conserves our forests and the vital resources important to our survival while wisely respecting the need for a forest economy that creates jobs and vibrant rural communities.  Our shared vision must begin with a complete commitment to restoration.  Restoration, for me, means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources while making our forests far more resilient to climate change.  The forest restoration effort led by the dedicated people of our Forest Service will open up nontraditional markets for climate mitigation and biomass energy while appropriately recognizing the need for more traditional uses of forest resources.  Importantly, and this is very important, this vision holds that the Forest Service must not be viewed solely as an agency concerned only with the fate of our national forests but must instead acknowledge for its work in protecting and maintaining all of America’s forests, including state, tribal, and private ones. Our shared vision must adopt an all-lands approach, requiring close collaboration with the NRCS and its work on America’s private working lands. Now, why should restoration be the driving principle in forest policy?  Well, there’s no doubt that we’re facing a health crisis in our forests.  Climate change places them under increasing stress that exacerbates the threat of fire, disease, and insects throughout the West but in other parts of the country as well.  A legacy of fire suppression has resulted in forests that are overstocked and much more susceptible to catastrophic fire and disease.  Restoring forest ecosystems, particularly in fire adapted forests, will make our forests more resilient to climate induced stresses and will ensure that our forests will continue to provide ample, abundant clean water.  In many of our forests, restoration will also include efforts to improve or decommission roads, to replace and improve culverts, and to rehabilitate streams and wetlands.  Restoration will also mean the rehabilitation of declining ecosystems.  One example in the South is the long leaf pine ecosystem, a forest that has been reduced from 90 million acres to, today, a mere 3 million acres.  Yet the Forest Service faces a number of barriers in pursuing a restoration agenda.  For years, the Forest Service has struggled with a budget that has forced management funds to be shifted to firefighting.  We must do better, and we can do better.  The Obama administration is already working with Congressman Dicks and others in the congress to ensure that the Forest Service has the funds it needs to fight fires and to manage forests.  Now, this is an important issue for our forests.  But it is also important for the men and women who make up the Forest Service.  It is our responsibility to give them the resources they need to succeed.  A second barrier to accomplishing restoration is a history of distrust between environmentalists, the Forest Service, and the forestry community.  The result has been seemingly countless appeals of forest management activity and subsequent litigation.  Now, certainly appeals and litigation have served as a useful backstop against misplaced management decisions.  But given the scale of restoration that must occur and the time in which we have to do it, a shared vision built on collaboration will help us move beyond the timber wars of the past.  Litigation and conflict should become less prevalent because they can be viewed as less necessary.  Now, fortunately, this process has begun.  In many regions today, the Forest Service is already charting a path forward by building trust through diverse stakeholders through collaboration and engagement.  A third barrier revolves around the loss of forest infrastructure represented by those who work in the forest industry.  In large parts of the West we’ve lost timber mills, and those who worked in them have left the area.  As a result, today we continue to lose the capacity to perform the important kinds of restoration work that must be done from thinning for habitat or watershed function to reducing hazardous fuels to removing trees to prevent the spread of insects and disease.  Without a robust forest industry that includes both traditional markets and these new markets like biomass energy, it will be much more difficult and much, much more expensive to improve the health of our forests.  Now, the Colville National Forest right here in Washington is a terrific example of the sort of collaborative effort that allows for appropriate forest management while providing timber supply to local mills.  It is here– the first national forest to do so– that engaged a diverse group of stakeholders in the most recent revision to their forest plan.  Individuals and groups including elected officials, timber interest, motorized recreationists, conservationists; they all got together to discuss the common goals for the forest.  The result: general acceptance was reached about where to concentrate future recreation and where to timber– harvest timber.  And tens of thousands, tens of thousands of additional acres in Colville were recognized for their roadless character and the potential for wilderness designation.  It is no small testament to this effort and to the energy of those involved that this area has avoided litigation for more than five years since that process was initiated.  Now, the experience here is not unique, but it can be more broadly applied.  If we undertake restoration of our national forests at a scale commensurate with the need, we will need to do more of this.  The Forest Service planning process provides an important venue to integrate forest restoration, climate resilience, watershed protection, wildlife conservation, the need for vibrant local economies, and the collaboration necessary to manage our national forests.  Our best opportunity to accomplish this is in the developing of a new forest planning rule for our national forests.  As many of you may know, in late June, a federal court overturned a 2008 planning rule put forward by the Forest Service.  This came on the heels of a similar court decision overturning the 2005 planning rule.  Now, faced with this, the Forest Service has a decision to appeal these decisions or not.  Well, we’ve decided not to seek further review of the latest court decision.  And I’ve asked Chief Tidwell to develop a new planning rule to ensure management and restoration of our national forest with the goal and vision of protecting our water, climate, and wildlife while also creating economic opportunity.  Another integral part of our shared vision must be adequate protection for roadless areas.  President Obama was quite clear in his campaign in emphasizing his support for protecting roadless areas.  He understood the important role they play in preserving water, climate, and recreational opportunities.  Just last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision reinstating the 2001 Clinton roadless rule.  I view this as a very, very positive development, yet the Forest Service is still subjected to a court injunction from a Wyoming district court judge in the tenth circuit in joining the Forest Service from implementing the 2001 rule. Let me be clear.  We will seek to lift that injunction in light of the ninth circuit’s decision.  And if the courts remain conflicted, or it’s not possible to protect roadless areas through the courts, we will initiate a new rule making process to do so.  I recognize that some states are already taking action on their own.  Colorado is moving forward with its own roadless rule as Idaho already has.  We believe Idaho’s rule is a strongly protective one for roadless areas.  And we note wisely that Governor Ritter in Colorado has asked for additional input on his draft roadless plan for Colorado.  He understands, as I do, that Colorado needs strong roadless protection, and so does the entire nation.  Now, the threats facing our forests do not recognize property boundaries.  So in developing a shared vision around forests, we must also be willing to look across property boundaries.  In other words, we must operate a landscape scale operation by taking an all-lands approach.  The reality is that 80% of the forest area in the United States is outside of the national forest system.  And many of our national forests are adjacent to state and private land.  Management decisions that are made both on and of the national forest obviously have important implications for that forest landscape.  More broadly, privately owned forests across the country face a daunting set of challenges.  As Congressman Dicks indicated, the Forest Service estimates that over 40 million acres, 40 million acres of private forest could be lost to development and fragmentation over the coming decades.  Americans tend to think that deforestation is a problem only in tropical countries.  Well, I’m here to tell you that we have our own deforestation problem right here in the U.S. of A.  And this has enormous implications for the climate, our drinking water, our rural economies, and wildlife.  Just keeping forests as forests remains a significant challenge.  The good news is that conservation groups, forest industry, and government agencies are increasingly willing to unite to address the common threat of the potential loss of forest lands on private land.  I want the Forest Service and the USDA to partner with these stakeholders in protecting those privately owned forests.  I believe, and I know Chief Tidwell agrees, that the Forest Service and the USDA can play an important role in working with these stakeholders to address forest loss.  Indeed, our Forest Service has a long history in working with private landowners through its partnership with state foresters and others in addressing stewardship on privately owned forests.  And USDA has its own unique strengths in this area as well.  The 2008 farm bill provides new opportunities to use existing conservation programs and to focus those resources on the most pressing problems facing family owned forests.  Many of our farm programs and conservation programs have much greater potential than the USDA has realized today to protect, rehabilitate, and conserve family forest land.  An important goal of the USDA and the Forest Service should be to integrate the work of the Forest Service and our National Resources Conservation Service.  This will be vital to embrace an all-lands approach.  Now, government programs provide only part of what is needed to realize our shared vision.  For forest ownership and stewardship to remain viable, it must remain economically rewarding as well for landowners.  Markets for wood will remain important to those landowners and local communities.  But private and public landowners must also access new markets for both low- and high-value products and services and forest uses in order to underwrite stewardship activities.  Emerging markets for carbon and sustainable bioenergy will provide landowners with expanded economic incentive to maintain and restore our forests.  Our Forest Service must play a significant role in the development of these new markets and must ensure their integrity.  But carbon and bioenergy aren’t the only new opportunity for landowners.  Markets for water can also provide landowners with incentives to restore wetlands, watersheds, and to manage forests for clean and abundant water supplies.  These markets can also create jobs in rural communities near forests.  By generating rural wealth, we can make it possible again for landowners to sustain our forests and our working landscapes.  I hope we’ll examine other policies and approaches outside of the USDA and the Forest Service that can address both management and also potential loss of private forest land.  I know Chief Tidwell and his counterpart, David White at NRCS, will seek out opportunities to work with conservation groups, with the forest industry, with state foresters and others to ensure that we maintain the private forests and utilize this all-lands approach.  The loss of our private working lands and private forests deserve constant attention.  Now, I’ve offered a broad vision today to guide the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture in setting a new course for America’s forests.  I recognize that there is a great deal of work yet to be done to make this a reality.  And so I’m tasking the Forest Service and USDA in partnership with all the stakeholders to make this vision a reality.  In the short term, I’ll ask Chief Tidwell to initiate that process to develop new planning rules to guide the management of our national forests consistent with this vision.  We’ll also monitor progress towards the protection of roadless areas in the courts, and we’ll act to protect roadless areas as necessary.  When it comes to restoring our forests, I want the Forest Service to improve its existing authorities and take advantage of new tools to restore all of our forests in order to protect our water and make our forests more resilient to climate change.  I’m asking Chief Tidwell and Chief White to work together in partnership with all groups, state forester, conservation groups, the forest industry, and others to develop a broad agenda for protecting our privately owned forests and our working lands.  And I want the Forest Service and USDA to play an even more prominent role in developing those new markets I spoke of, carbon, bioenergy, and water, as a means to conserve our forests.  The path ahead is challenging, but it is full of opportunity.  We must encourage, catalog, and expand the collaborative solutions that hold the most promise to protect our public lands and our working lands.  We must dramatically accelerate the scale and pace of forest stewardship here on both public and private lands.  On our national forests, we must restore more acres more rapidly if we are to prevent catastrophic fires, insect outbreaks, and other threats, particularly as climate change makes those threats more potent.  On private land, we must move more quickly to protect our forest landscapes before they no longer can function to support watershed health, biodiversity, conservation, and viable wood markets.  Americans often assume that our health and well-being are separate from the health of our natural world.  But I return again to the simple act that we Americans often take for granted every day:  turning on those water faucets.  The clean water that emerges is made possible in large part by the stewardship of our working rural land and our forests in particular.  My hope, and I trust you share it, is that together we can foster a greater appreciation in this country for our forests and that all Americans, regardless of where they live, see the quality of their lives, and the quality of their forests as inseparable.  Thank you very much.  [Applause]

Read Full Post »