The Complications of Being a Conservationist

Today's ruling from USFWS demonstrates the complications of being a conservationist. Long sought by many environmentalists, a ruling to place the Sage Grouse on the endangered species list would thwart many wind farms and other alternative energy projects in the basin regions of eastern Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming. Of course, it would also make it very difficult for natural gas exploration.

So the current administration chose a middle ground, announcing they were concerned about the viability of this amazing upland bird, but could not, at this time, place it on the list.

Every single environmental/conservative decision has enormous consequences. We'll probably soon know whether the rejection of the application sends this bird into extinction. On the other hand, by listing it as a candidate species, perhaps, just perhaps, all the efforts by conservation groups, private landowners, and governments may just work.

It's complicated, right?

Across Boundaries

Last week, Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, announced a "new way" of managing our nation's forests. Rather than viewing lands by ownership patterns: private, state, federal, the United States Forest Service will be charged with managing all our forests. In other words, viewing lands as a landscape.

While this has been a much advocated position through academia, it's a welcome relief to see the federal government recognize that one of this nation's most valuable natural resources, our forest ecosystems, must transcend boundaries. The wealth of knowledge, research dollars, and plain common sense that the federal government has and can share with private land owners and state natural resource departments, much less the common boundaries between each of these stakeholders, mandates this type of management scheme.

From protecting water supplies to addressing pests, boundaries are false barriers to good management.

I have been, frankly, a little worried about the Obama Administration's goals for rural areas. This announcement, at least, mitigates some concern.

Land Use Planning and Density

Years ago I did a masters thesis on clustering housing around "working forests." Later I gave a presentation at the Kennedy School for Government at Harvard on the same topic. In New England, the idea caught on and there are several developments, now, around forests which are managed for timber products. So it didn't surprise me to read that the new thing is clustering housing around working farms or ranches. It's the ultimate in eating from local sources.

It's a great idea and it's popularity confirms what the Pew polling data shows, that people prefer to live in single family houses with surrounding open space. While suburbs may be unpopular for many so-called "environmentalists," it's still the dream of most Americans.

In Seattle there is a density dogma. Funneling people into mass transit (I call it planning for lemmings), using behavioral strategies to "nudge" people out of cars, and upzoning in neighborhoods to allow for mass and density in projects (or the nail salon buildings where there are apartments or condos above retail which either remains empty or has amazingly tenacious nail salons as tenants). In a matter of a few years we have gone from a charming city with dozens of quirky neighborhoods to a cranky city with cookie-cutter buildings on every single block. However, it is virtually impossible, if you're an aspiring policy maker or politician, to question this urban planning. Every single interest group, from realtors to environmentalists have bought into it (for a variety of reasons which are at odds with each stakeholder group). But it is also an unrealistic and frankly elitist way of trying to make people conform to a way of life that doesn't exist. It's as if the planners and stakeholders are incapable of even examining their own life patterns: the trips to the doctor, taking kids to soccer games, having to care give for elderly parents, wanting to take in a concert or play...I suppose it's ok for them to use their cars but not anyone else (the Seattle mayor famously has said he can't bike to work because he needs a security detail! Yeah, right).

So here it is, the lusting after the bucolic but being told living in homogenous canyon-like cities is better. And how did these urban planners get in control?

Rural Economies

The State of Washington has maintained it "trust" lands that were deeded to them by the federal government when it became a state.  These trust lands are required by federal law to maximize income for education, and thus, the trees are managed under a sustained yield model and sold for timber to the highest bidders.  Funds are then used for local schools and state universities and colleges.

However, with the economic meltdown, projections of income from these state trust lands has greatly diminished.  The state trust lands, which are distinct from other state own forest lands and federal forests, provided some of the last places where small timber companies and family owned logging operations could find, log, and mill wood.  Unfortunately, these small operations will probably not last during this recession.

What concerns me are the attitudes from primarily urban based environmental folks who see this decline and probably demise of small logging and milling operations as a good thing.  I could go on a rant about this, but only want to suggest that if we want to think about buying local as a good thing, then we ought to remember that includes wood products.  

As we begin to unravel what is in the economic stimulus package, I hope we begin to realize all boats are rising and falling on the same tide.  Rural, suburban, urban.  No one is better, all of us can be worse.

Saving Utah One Auction at a Time

Just before the holidays the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency within the Department of Interior, held a controversial oil and gas lease auction.  The lands where the leases are available are in southern Utah, and a number of the areas are adjacent to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, among other places in that neck of the woods.

Tim DeChristopher, a 27 year old graduate student in economics at the University of Utah showed up at the Salt Lake City Bureau of Land Management office anticipating that he would participate in the protest outside the doors while the auction proceeded inside.  Instead, apparently on a whim, he registered as a bidder, got his paddle with the number 70 on it, and began bidding on 13 lease parcels for a total of $1.8 million.  That is until the other bidders, all with oil and gas companies, realized DeChristopher was "not one of them," and called the cops.

Since this is America, he was detained, questioned, and the case was referred to a federal prosecutor.  There is, after all, laws against this sort of thing.

But DeChristopher has not gone down silently.  He began fund raising for the $45,000 necessary to hold his bids.  Within days, he raised the money.  A former director for the Bureau of Land Management, Pat Shea, has volunteered to represent the graduate student.  And DeChristopher is talking seriously about raising the rest of the $1.8 million to buy the leases outright (although there is some discussion whether the current mining law, written in 1872, yes, that's right, will require him to actually mine the lands).  

Of course, the oil and gas companies were ballistic.  One was quoted mentioning a lynching party when they realized DeChristopher was upping the ante on the bidding.  They are probably ballistic over the favorable media attention this auction monkey-wrencher has been receiving.  And thus, the oil and gas folks are encouraging criminal prosecution, alleging since he was not a oil "player" he came to the auction with fraudulent intent.

While DeChristopher's actions seem novel, it reminded me of environmental organizations bidding on grazing leases with the US Forest Service in New Mexico a number of years ago.  The US Forest Service debated the legality of Forest Guardians having grazing leases with no intention of grazing on them, but in the end, Forest Guardians won out.  But at this point, DeChristopher is a hero.  His bidding was noted in Huffington Post, Democracy Now, and Truthout.  He was belatedly written about in the Washington Post and New York Times.

Although I have to also note when he talks about being frustrated with the system and looking for ways to stop the auction, it is the same language the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) cell members used when describing the preludes to their becoming radical.  In other words, they became frustrated working with the system and decided to torch something instead.  To DeChristopher's credit, he worked within the system, and in all actuality probably did a better job stopping the drilling or at least bringing attention to the location of the potential leases, than if he resorted to committing property damage.  In fact, his actions were pretty darn radical in a wonderful way.

Of course, as is always the case when activism plays by the rules and wins, the rules will more than likely change.  Years ago it was all the vogue to buy shares of stock and show up at corporate shareholders' meetings, raise a ruckus, maybe even introduce a new by-law.  People with as disparate backgrounds as environmentalists to Calpers, the largest institutional investor in America (Calpers is the California Pension System) used this method to push for corporations to change.  But corporate executives, not enjoying this kind of brouhaha at their meetings, frequently changed the rules, so that now, most shareholder meetings are PowerPoint presentations on why shareholders should appreciate the fact the executives are acquiring tons of stock options and milking the company until they leave with huge severance packages.

I think if the federal government is going to sell rights to natural resources through this kind of bid process there should be no problem if someone shows up, bids, wins, and comes up with the money, regardless of their intent to log, drill, or graze.  In other words, the highest bidder should obtain the right, whether they intend to use it or not.  Isn't that capitalism?  In DeChristopher's case I imagine it will be fairly easy for him to find some angel who will donate $1.8 million to protect land near the Arches or Canyonlands from oil rigs.  However, if I was a fiscal watchdog for the federal government, I would wonder how it is they are conducting auctions without verifying the assets of bidders in the room?  Do they need someone from Christies or Sothebys to show them how to do it?

Of course, there are lots of land management issues with this particular auction.  It seems to me that many in the preservation community believe that the boundaries of National Parks extend beyond the actual boundaries on the map.  In this case, the Bureau of Land Management, also, like the National Parks under the Department of Interior, manages much of the land outside Arches and Canyonlands National Parks.  And indeed, one of the missions, if you will, of the BLM is to use the land for minerals and grazing.  On a larger policy level, we might want to think about addressing this boundary issue.  Should boundaries of National Parks extend beyond the designated boundary such that visitors to the Parks don't see logging or mining operations (much less ORV use)?  Do we re-configure boundaries, which are somewhat artificial to begin with, by looking at similar ecotopes?  It is, of course, a thorny question, but it seems to me all sides to this issue in Utah, Montana, Wyoming in particular have entrenched to the point resolution seems against each of their interests.  But trying to resolve it through bidding at auctions or protests or pursuing criminal action is, well, not exactly big picture.  

Sooner or later we are going to have to realize we need to find a middle ground...

In the meantime, DeChristopher's donation web site is: www.bidder70.org.