Youtube video Happy Camp prescribed fire 5/12

Rethinking Forests: The fight against global warming ; The Opportunity; Wildfires; Managed Forests ; Pacific Northwest Perspectives ; Use it, or lose it; Tackle Climate Change; Wood Naturally Good; Patrick Moore Interview ;  Rethinking Forests: The fight against global warming ; Rethinking Our Forests; Informational Video: Forests Can Be A Global Warming Solution ; Forests for the Next Century

new.gif (26402 bytes)Siskiyou County, Douglas Co., OR and Skamania Co. WA (spotted owl website),  join forces to conduct an economic study of the cummulative impacts of set asides for the Northern Spotted Owl, to request cooperating agency status on social and economic expertise and to request a 90 day extension on the Critical Habitat comment period. Denial of Cooperating Agency status and denial of 90 day extension request Skamania); Economic Analysis - Data Collection Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Designation ; BLM issues updated Guide for Cooperating Agencies; Desk guide;

new.gif (26402 bytes)Dr. Nick Dennis has submitted his report tailoring the INPLAN model on the economic impacts of logging to Siskiyou County: Draft Forest Sector Model; Siskiyou County Comments on the DEA for Critical Habitat for the Northwest Spotted Owl

new.gif (26402 bytes)Critical habitat   Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012), [Notices], [Pages 14036-14039], Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Experimental Removal of   Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls; Comment by close of business (4:30 p.m.) on or before July 6, 2012 (extended). Proposed critical habitat map;  Service Identifies Areas to Be Assessed for Potential Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat, Proposes Broad Exclusions, Ecological Forestry, and Barred Owl Control; Bigger spotted owl habitat proposed Federal plan calls for nearly doubling forest acreage; The 2008 critical habitat proposal contained 5.3 million acres in three states, while the most recent proposal, which was released March 8, covers 9.7 million acres. Only 14 percent of the critical habitat includes private land, Henson said. Presidential Memorandum -- Proposed Revised Habitat for the Spotted Owl: Minimizing Regulatory Burdens; Spotted Owl’s ‘critical habitat’ under revision; Invasive Barred Owls Interfere with Spotted Owls in Critical Ways; (study) ; Logging and Shooting Hoot Owls Planned President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar ordering him to pay special attention to the impact on jobs of any plan, and to "give careful consideration to providing the maximum exclusion [of land] from the final revised critical habitat." In addition, Obama ordered Salazar to break with 30 years of practice and produce an economic impact statement on the proposed rule at the same time the critical habitat designation is made. Federal wildlife officials collect spotted owl comments; Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - reportedly may expand Forest set-asides from 25% to 75% of the western Kalamth National Forest.

new.gif (26402 bytes)Coordination with the USFS - meeting minutes 7/13, /8/11, 8/23, 11/15/11 and 4/11/12(strategy meeting.)  Public lands, forestry projects discussed -   11/15/11 Meeting 1

new.gif (26402 bytes)Sub-committee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands United States House of Representatives   - Armstrong comments or here for recent oversight field hearing on "Explosion of Federal Regulations Threatening Jobs and Economic Survival in the West" held in Elko, NV  (Additional Information on Social Conditions not included in comment) ; Siskiyou County Comments; Forest Service defends road closures at hearingWitnesses Call for Increased Public Participation, Transparency in Federal Land Management Decision-Making Process; National Parks, Forests & Public Lands Subcommittee to Hold Field Hearing in Elko, NV -The National Forest System was created to ensure that future generations would have working forests that would serve multiple objectives.  Unfortunately, over time, the role of the U.S. Forest Service has shifted away from upholding this original intent.  In recent years we have seen efforts to limit accessibility and multiple-use in forests and on other federal lands, as evidenced by an onslaught of rules, regulations and administrative overreach.  The field hearing in Nevada will provide an opportunity to examine this issue more closely and see what impact it is having on local communities and industries.  It will also provide local stakeholders with an opportunity to share their insights on these regulations and propose how they might be modified to better serve the needs of communities like Elko and others throughout the country,” said Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop (UT-01). Hearing page

new.gif (26402 bytes)Siskiyou County National Forest Accountability Project ; Version 2
(Unanimously passed by the Board of Supervisors to support and adopt as policy)

new.gif (26402 bytes)Proposed Scott River Cooperative Restoration Area (Draft)

new.gif (26402 bytes)RS 2477 Roads & Right-of-Way, what the forest service does not want you to know! (Summary)

new.gif (26402 bytes)Land and Resource Management Plan for the Public Lands in the Happy Camp Area (for Coordination between the Happy Camp Coordinating Districts and Federal & State Agencies)

new.gif (26402 bytes)Workshop Session 3 Report PDF version Improving Social and Economic Conditions in Rural Forest Communities Dialog Held October 12, 2011, Garden Pavilion, Mcclellan, California

Film about Happy Camp, its people and forests
(click on "California")

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Oversight Hearing on "Forest Service Regulatory Roadblocks to Productive Land Use and Recreation: Proposed Planning Rule, Special-use Permits, and Travel Management" Watch the Archived Hearing Webcast; US Forest Service Chief Testifies On New Direction For Forest Planning

rdbar.jpg (10843 bytes)

2.jpg (40342 bytes)

new.gif (26402 bytes)Final Planning RuleUSDA Publishes Final Rule to Restore the Nation's Forests Through Science and Collaboration; [Uses the CEQ publication Collaboration in NEPA – A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners ] USDA Forest Service Region 5 Forest Plan Revision DRAFT Collaboration Handbook v1.2 - note page 5 where local governments get "briefed" and tribal councils get "consulted"; Regional Council of Rural Counties Board Takes Positions to Support Proposition 28 and Move Forward with the Memorandum of Agreement with U.S. Forest Service; (MOA draft)

New Planning Rule language:

(1) Outreach. The responsible official shall engage the public—including Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, individuals, and public and private organizations or entities—early and throughout the planning process as required by this part, using collaborative processes where feasible and appropriate. In providing opportunities for engagement, the responsible official shall encourage participation by:

(i) Interested individuals and entities, including those interested at the local, regional, and national levels.

(ii) Youth, low-income populations, and minority populations.

(iii) Private landowners whose lands are in, adjacent to, or otherwise affected by, or whose actions may impact, future management actions in the plan area.

(iv) Federal agencies, States, counties, and local governments, including State fish and wildlife agencies, State foresters and other relevant State agencies. Where appropriate, the responsible official shall encourage States, counties, and other local governments to seek cooperating agency status in the NEPA process for development, amendment, or revision of a plan. The responsible official may participate in planning efforts of States, counties, local governments, and other Federal agencies, where practicable and appropriate....


(b) Coordination with other public planning efforts. (1) The responsible official shall coordinate land management planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments.

(2) For plan development or revision, the responsible official shall review the planning and land use policies of federally recognized Indian Tribes (43 U.S.C. 1712(b)), Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments, where relevant to the plan area. The results of this review shall be displayed in the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the plan (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2). The review shall include consideration of:

(i) The objectives of federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments, as expressed in their plans and policies;

(ii) The compatibility and interrelated impacts of these plans and policies;

(iii) Opportunities for the plan to address the impacts identified or contribute to joint objectives; and

(iv) Opportunities to resolve or reduce conflicts, within the context of developing the plan’s desired conditions or objectives.

(3) Nothing in this section should be read to indicate that the responsible official will seek to direct or control management of lands outside of the plan area, nor will the responsible official conform management to meet non-Forest Service objectives or policies.



"All Lands" approach to conservation;

  • An All-Lands Approach to Conservation Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell
    Western States Land Commissioners Association, Winter 2010 Conference
    Little Rock, AR—January 13, 2010: "That means using all USDA resources and authorities, in collaboration with NRCS, to sustain the entire matrix of federal, state, tribal, county, municipal, and private forests."   collaborative authorities for landscape-scale conservation "We need to restore the resilience of America’s forests and grasslands to disturbances of all kinds. The treatments needed will improve watershed health, increase water quantity, improve water quality, generate rural prosperity, and meet our shared vision of healthy, resilient landscapes. Those are our priorities.But none of this can happen on a piecemeal scale. It has to be on a scale that supersedes ownership."

    "Ecosystem Services" - FSM 2000 – national forest resource management chapter 2020 – ecological restoration and resilience Interim Directive No.:  2020-2010-1;     Ecosystem Services and

    Washington D.C. National Planning Forum

    House Agricultural Committee Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry - Public Hearing
    RE: To review the U.S. Forest Service's proposed Forest Planning Rule. Testimony click here

new.gif (26402 bytes)Amendment 177 Herger seeking a moratorium on travel management designation


Siskiyou County has filed an appeal on the Travel Management Plan

for the Shasta Trinity NF and also the Klamath NF Plan

rdbar.jpg (10843 bytes)

Travel Management Directives – Effective January 8, 2009 

FederalRegister Notice for Travel Management Directives (pdf), December 9, 2008

Travel Management Directives

rdbar.jpg (10843 bytes)

Region 5 Memmorandum of Intent

Sub-Part B - Motorized Travel Management Decision (prohibiting cross-country travel by motorized vehicles and adding unauthorized routes to the Forest Transportation System)

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, Subpart B, Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use) Highlights of the Rule

  • The rule requires each national forest or ranger district to designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicles.
  • Designation will include class of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year for motor vehicle use. A given route, for example, could be designated for use by motorcycles, ATVs, or street-legal vehicles.
  • Once designation is complete, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations.
  • Designation decisions will be made locally, with public input and in coordination with state, local, and tribal governments.
  • Designations will be shown on a motor vehicle use map. Use inconsistent with the designations will be prohibited.

rdbar.jpg (10843 bytes)

Sub-Part A

The upcoming Travel Analysis stipulated by Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule is not a NEPA decision-making process like Subpart B was. It is an internal analysis of the entire road system that will produce recommendations about a desired future Forest Transportation System. Public involvement in the process will be less formal than for a NEPA decision.

The product of this analysis will be a document called a “TAP” (Travel Analysis Process). It will serve the National Forest Lassen as a guide for future road decisions, but it will not dictate such decisions. Future road decisions will be made on a case by case basis with further NEPA analyses and the associated additional opportunities for public input.

The TAP will (1) identify a minimum road system needed for public and administrative uses, (2) describe and evaluate trade-offs with potentially desirable roads in excess of this minimum system, (3) identify roads for decommissioning (including priorities and timeframes), and (4) evaluate unneeded roads that might be converted to other uses.

Feb. 1 Article on New Subpart A Lawsuit Filed in CO
Copy of Complaint filed in CO

Subpart A Lawsuit Filed in NV
Subpart A Lawsuit Filed in CA and the Green’s Lust for Closures





USFS Proposed Planning Rule Comments armstrong

Western States Sheriff's Association comments on proposed US Forest Service Planning Rule;

Revised Proposed Planning Rule 1/12

Coordination - County Government and the New Forest Planning Rule: After a first round of public comment, the U.S. Forest Service has now published its proposed new Planning Rule with changes to the current “coordination” language. At least they are an improvement on the first proposed change.

The new language require the “responsible official” rather than the “line officer” to coordinate “land management planning” rather than “regional and forest planning” with equivalent and related planning efforts of local governments. Coordination consists of “reviewing the planning and land use policies” of local governments.

Both versions require “consideration” of local government’s objectives “as expressed in their plans and policies.” The new version requires assessment of “compatibility and interrelated impacts” of the plans and policies. Then seeks “opportunities” for the plan to: address impacts; contribute to joint objectives; and to “resolve or reduce conflicts, within the context of developing the plan’s desired conditions or objectives. “ The 1982 version required: an assessment of the interrelated impacts of the plans and policies; a determination of how each Forest Plan would deal with them; and “where conflicts were identified, “consideration of alternatives for their resolution.”

The new version qualifies the coordination section by indicating that the responsible official shall not “conform management to meet non-Forest Service objectives or policies.” The previous language requiring the responsible line officer to meet with the representative of local government at the beginning of the planning process to develop procedures for coordination has been removed. New rule:   Old rule: with other public planning efforts



Rethinking American Forests



US. Forest Service Organic Act of 1897. "No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of [the Creative Act of 1891], to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes."

Note: In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, stated:

"The legislative debates surrounding the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and its predecessor bills demonstrate that Congress intended national forests to be reserved for only two purposes -- "[t]o conserve the water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the people." [Footnote 14] 30 Cong.Rec. 967 (1897) (Cong. McRae). See United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 220 U. S. 515 (1911). National forests were not to be reserved for aesthetic, environmental, recreational, or wildlife preservation purposes. [Footnote 15]

"The objects for which the forest reservations should be made are the protection of the forest growth against destruction by fire and ax, and preservation of forest conditions upon which water conditions and water flow are dependent. The purpose, therefore, of this bill is to maintain favorable forest conditions, without excluding the use of these reservations for other purposes. They are not parks set aside for nonuse, but have been established for economic reasons."

"30 Cong.Rec. 966 (1897) (Cong. McRae). Administrative regulations at the turn of the century confirmed that national forests were to be reserved for only these two limited purposes. [Footnote 16] "

The Court rejected assertions that the Act established a third purpose for which forests could be created - "to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries." They also rejected that reserved water rights for Forests included minimum instream flows for fish. Also note: In Sierra Club v. Hardin, 325 F. Supp. 99 - D. Alaska, 1971, the court ruled that the Secretary of Agriculture may also consider the economic well-being of the citizens of a state wherein timber is located in administering national forest lands "for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.")

 rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes) International

The need to establish a standardized international framework for assessing sustainable forest management led to the drafting of the Montreal Process of Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests in 1995, hereafter referred to as the Montreal Process; (Montreal Process Working Group 1998). The United States has demonstrated commitment to sustainable forest management by participating in the international working group that developed criteria and indicators and by subsequently becoming a signatory participant in the Montreal Process.

The Montreal Process establishes a list of 7 criteria and 67 indicators for the sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Criterion 6, titled “Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple Socioeconomic Benefits to Meet the Needs of Societies” contains 19 indicators to reflect the role that forest management plays in promoting and sustaining social, economic, and community well-being in forested areas; brochure (Seminar of Experts on Sustainable Development of Boreal and Temperate Forests) (Source Assessing Socioeconomic Resiliency in Washington Counties)

The Montreal C&I were designed to evaluate SFM at the national level and consist of seven criteria and, following the recent indicator review and refinement process described below, 64 indicators are grouped beneath those criteria  The number of indicators falling under each criterion is listed below.  (Santiago Declarations;Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests; endorsed by US (2006 Sapporo Japan refinements)Santiago Declaration) See also Comparing Forest Management Certification Systems and the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators; Sustainable Forest management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods

  1. Conservation of biological diversity (9 indicators)
  2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems (5 indicators)
  3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality (2 indicators)
  4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources (5 indicators)
  5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles (3 indicators)
  6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of society (20 indicators)
  7. Legal, institutional, and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management (20 indicators) Rountable on Sustainable Forests; Summaries

2010 National Report on Sustainable Forests; Key Findings from the National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 Rich Guldin Research; Sustainable Forest Action Strategy

Federal Laws: A Brief History of National Forests

Executive Orders

1993 Pesidential Directive NSC-16 committed to a national goal of achieving sustainable managment of US forests by the year 2000; MOU among federal agencies responsible for data realted to the criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management 01-SU-11130144-010

Secretary's Memorandum 9500-6: Sustainable Development (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Sept. 13, 1996) (See also Sustainable Agriculture - Definitions and Terms)

"USDA is committed to working toward the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of diverse food, fiber, agriculture, forest, and range systems. USDA will balance goals of improved production and profitability, stewardship of the natural resource base and ecological systems, and enhancement of the vitality of rural communities. USDA will integrate these goals into its policies and programs, particularly through interagency collaboration, partnerships and outreach."

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Overview; Fact Sheet

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)National Association of Counties Public Lands Steering Committee ; NACO Planning Rule Comment; 2010 Policies




LOCAL Management Plans

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)State Forestry Agencies Identify Priority Lands and Issues Across America

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Eco-Cultural Resources Management Plan (Karuk)



rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Timber Production 1980-2008

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Dry Forest Zone Assessment

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Restoring the West - Restoring People and Fire To the Land : The 2010 South Umpqua Study (Video) Dr. Bob Zybach

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Federal geographic data committee launches new geospatial website

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)KRIS Klamath Resource Information System

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)National Report on Sustainable Forests – 2003

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)California Forest IndustryPrimary Manufacturers Currently in Operation2000-2010 Closures (sawmills unless otherwise indicated)

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy (Forests and Rangelands)

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Litigation

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Stewardship Contracts

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Community Forests

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes) Sustained Yield Unit

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Fuels Treatment

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Coordinated Resource Offering Protocol

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR)

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Collaboration

triple-bottom-line1.jpg (35339 bytes)

swrr_framework.gif (10930 bytes)

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Coordination

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Economic Impact

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Forest Dependent Communities

"Throughout the summer of 2005, the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests hosted a series of workshops dedicated to the review and refinement of the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators (C&I). This review marked the 10-year anniversary of the Santiago Declaration and the associated agreement to refine the criteria and indicators based on lessons gleaned from a decade of experience and research. As part of the review process, groups of social scientists gathered to discuss the social component of sustainability and the associated Montreal Process C&I. One of the recommended refinements to the Montreal Process C&I was the creation an index of Community Resilience. The index would be included in the sub-criteria, Community Well- Being." " Their overriding presumption was that Community Resilience is best measured via the construct of community capitals, specifically resources or assets available within the community. These include social, cultural, human, financial, political and built capitals." Indicator 38 - Community Resilience


rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Water Flow Impacts and Ecosystem Services

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Minerals (See suction dredge mining)

rdbut.jpg (1118 bytes)Forest Stand Structure and Pattern




Articles, Reports, etc

Evergreen Magazine


See also



Secure Rural Schools and Communities



National Association of Forest Service Retirees

National Allaince of Forest Owners


Free Hit Counter                                   
free hit counter