There's a change-a-comin'
In the face of climate change, our forests need help. Many of our national forests are abundant with overgrown plantations, the kind of forests that grew up following logging of old growth. But how do we make these forests more resistant and resilient to climate change, and better habitat for wildlife? There is a much greater sense of agreement these days about the primary purpose of the national forests and the Forest Service being an ecological one. Is the Forest Service there yet, and how do we bring them along?
Will wildlife habitat on our public lands be buffered from climate change? Original drawing by Chad Crowe (chadcrowe.com), species umbrella by Tanja Wilcox
This week I went to Whitefish, Montana, to speak to a gathering of the Forest Service’s northern Rockies Region district rangers. I spoke of the need for need to refocus the Forest Service’s mission towards ecological restoration, both to repair our public forest ecosystems for past abuse and to prepare them for the effects of climate change. I describe this mission as a Restoration Marshall Plan. Collaboration is a key element of making that plan possible, especially given the controversial history of Forest Service management. Given Conservation Northwest's strengths in collaboration, I suggested practical tips for agency managers to improve collaborative results. Read the whole speech.
The talk was well received by this audience. It was the third time I’d given a version of this rap to a group of Forest Service managers, and it always goes pretty well. But I also learn a lot from attending these events. While I wait for my spot on the agenda, like a fly on the wall I hear what Forest Service leaders say to one another. It’s quite a mix, some impressive and encouraging, some not so much.
For instance, this group of about forty rangers was given a presentation on climate change, and the results of an internal poll on how agency managers were dealing with it. Over 20 percent of agency leaders (this seemed to apply inside the room too) don’t believe it's happening. A much larger percentage doesn’t feel it has access to good information on it other than what’s in the media. It was quite clear that few had ideas of what they’d like to do on the ground to advance the genuine objective of preparing ecosystems to be more resistant and resilient to the impacts.
There was, of course, a fair amount of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. The chief budget officer of the Forest Service had traveled from DC. When asked, she admitted she had no idea what one would do to fix the budget morass that has haunted the agency for decades. Other presentations, and lots of questions, focused on internal procedures, protocols, and pilot programs that were–at least to me–almost incomprehensible. District Rangers are the field lieutenants of the agency, the top managers in charge of large tracts of ground. And here they are, spending their time and thought tangled in bureaucracy rather than leading the way to addressing real challenges.
A big reason for the paper chase focus of these folks is the level of controversy surrounding their work. Managers have been incredibly frustrated by appeals of their projects by conservationists. I’ve heard these stories many times and know many of the folks appealing projects, yet it was striking to hear the accounts from the rangers themselves. In some cases they’ve tried hard to bring people to the table to work on projects collaboratively Some projects were even developed through collaborations that included strong conservation folks, yet were still appealed by others who weren’t involved. The result is an agency that focuses on bomb-proofing its NEPA paperwork rather than efficiently making progress on the ground.
On the other hand, I saw signs that not everyone in the agency is progressive or likely to produce quality collaborative restoration projects. I know that at times Conservation Northwest has been challenged to advance quality collaborative work in places where these old-guard managers are still in place. Somehow we have to find a way for the agency to improve collaboration and for more trust and flexibility to be found. There’s a chicken and egg element to this problem, and I’m not sure I know the solution.
While in Montana, I was also able to spend some time with a friend whose group has–in the past–filed a lot of those appeals the rangers mentioned. Yet recently he’s been trying to move forward and do more work collaboratively. It’s been frustrating for him because he’s often pigeon-holed by the agency, press, and politicians for his past, rather than encouraged for how he wants to proceed. At the same time he’s struggled with resistance from conservation friends (including staff and board members) who want to keep fighting the old fight the old way.
I can sure relate to how hard progress in our national forests can be, but I am hopeful that as a new generation of Forest Service employees takes the helm, we will see more effective collaboration projects that address the ecological need for restoration. Conservation Northwest has already seen many successes on the ground when we advocate for and lead a collaborative process. We see a bright future for our national lands as an effective natural resource for buffering climate change and its effects on people and wildlife.
