Some Personal Notes on the Approval of the New Management Plan

Briefly, the amendments were to: 1) limit revenue in the 3-year interim period to that needed to fund routine operations of the forest, needed environmental repairs, and support of the advisory committee review process, 2) advisory committee review of essentially all THPs in the interim, and 3) replacing R&D as the driving force behind forest landscape planning with consideration of all of the goals specified for the forest in the MP, including restoration, ecological and watershed processes, and recreation and human enjoyment.

The second two items never even caused a flutter. The revenue limitation was resisted by many, including our normal champion David Nawi (who apparently felt that there couldn't be a majority support for this limitation). When the discussion looked like it was going to end and the board would move to approve the plan without this amendment, I asked to comment, and Chairman Dixon allowed me to do so.

I stressed to the board that the revenue limitation was a key element in what allowed the working group to reach consensus. I said, "This is a compromise. I know that there are some who would like Jackson to go immediately to much higher levels of timber harvesting, but what made our consensus possible was agreement to have limited harvesting for three years while the advisory committee developed, with public input, a long-term landscape plan and silvicultural policies for the forest." I then said, very pointedly, "I caution the board members to consider carefully before rejecting the agreement that promises to get Jackson Forest back into operation without further controversy. We've all worked hard and long to get to this point."

They apparently got the message. Dixon called a 10-minute break. Nawi worked with our group to rewrite the revenue limitation to make it more indirect, but it was the same limitation never the less. The one significant change that I accepted was the inclusion of remediation of failing roads during the interim period, which CDF said could run $1 to $2 million per year. Obviously, this won't occur this year; so the advisory committee will be in full operation and have substantial influence on plans by the time these revenue requirement becomes significant. And, I have to agree that fast action on the roads will probably bring more environmental benefit than the environmental loss from the additional logging.

The Board came back from recess and relatively quickly approved inclusion of all three amendments in the Management Plan. It approved the Management Plan with 8 in favor and 1 abstention (Tom Walz, timber representative, who said he abstained because he had cast the sole vote against the EIR).

The Board then took up the charter for the advisory group. That this was ready to consider at the same time as the EIR/MP was a substantial accomplishment. Less than a month ago, CDF staff had said they would work on it after the EIR was approved. I did my best to urge that it come up simultaneously. I believe the Director of CDF, Ruben Grijalva, gave direction to get it ready for this meeting.

The charter was first discussed on Tuesday at the Management Committee of the Board. I was provided a copy of the draft charter prepared by CDFon the weekend; so I was able to make suggested revisions and get the edited document to the committee members on  Monday. The original terms of work had a number of objectionable elements, most importantly the presumption that R&D only, rather than the multiple goals of the forest, would drive silvicultural treatments and spatial allocations.

The dynamics of the meeting were a precursor of how my concerns were handled at the Board meeting. Surprisingly, Russ Henly, the lead CDF person, supported the changes that I wanted to make!  Then, even more surprisingly, Bill Keyes, point man for the California Foresters Association, and long-time opponent of Jackson reform, said that it was important to give the advisory committee a broad charter and flexibility because it was central to success of the working group's solution for getting Jackson back in operation.

The committee, which included Tom Walz, the only person to vote against the EIR on Wednesday, ended up approving of the changes unanimously! The result is a charter which creates the best possible opportunity for advisory committee to be an effective force for guiding Jackson Forest toward operating with a balanced set of public values. See the second attachment.

The charter was approved by the full board unanimously. CDF also had already made a press release on Tuesday soliciting nominations for membership on the advisory group, with a deadline of February 8. (I don't yet have a link to the actual release. I will put it on jacksonforest.org when I get it.) It appears likely that the appointments will be made in time to be confirmed at the March board meeting.

What was most remarkable to me was the transformation of CDF staff, represented by Russ Henly, from unyielding opponent to accommodating cooperator in the final act. I could only speculate about the reasons, and such speculation seems best left unspoken.

So, all and all, after a few difficult moments and long perseverance, we appear to be set to head into the next phase of Jackson Forest reform in a much better position than anyone would have though possible even two years ago.

Vince Taylor
January 10, 2008