15 Feb 2008, 2:09pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
8 comments

S. 2593 - The Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2008

On February 5th Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced S. 2593, the Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2008. It is similar in some respects to the Pacific Northwest Forest Legacy Act suggested by Rep. Peter DeFazio in January [here], but Bingaman’s bill is also substantially different.

The full text of S. 2593 is [here]. An excerpt:

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall establish a Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to select and fund ecological restoration treatments for priority forest landscapes in accordance with applicable law.

(b) Eligibility Criteria- To be eligible for nomination under subsection (c), a collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal shall-

(1) be based on a landscape restoration strategy that-

(A) is complete or substantially complete;

(B) identifies and prioritizes ecological restoration treatments for a 10-year period across a landscape that is-

(i) at least 50,000 acres;

(ii) comprised primarily of forested National Forest System land, but may also include other Federal, State, tribal, or private land;

(iii) in need of active ecosystem restoration; and

(iv) accessible by existing or proposed wood-processing infrastructure at an appropriate scale to use woody biomass and small-diameter wood removed in ecological restoration treatments;

All analyses and comments are more than welcome, they are urgently needed. Please review and send us your thinking. Thank you.

13 Feb 2008, 10:16pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
5 comments

Flaws in the GAO Fire Report

The United States Government Accountability Office issued a report on wildland fire management, GAO-08-433T [here], and presented it in testimony before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives yesterday.

There are numerous flaws in GAO-08-433T.

1. The report considers only the budget funding for firefighting, not the financial losses from forest fires.

The “cost” of a forest fire is much, much more than the dollars spent on suppression. Any competent accounting MUST include the losses associated with the fire.

The GAO are accountants, right? It’s in their name. They seem clueless about basic accounting, however. If one of the GAO accountant’s home burned down, you can bet your bottom dollar they’d hound their insurance company for the funds to restore and replace their home. They would not request merely that the fire department get suppression funding.

This is so basic that their complete blindness to fire losses defies explanation.

more »

Bipartisan House Coalition Introduces Legislation to Fix Biomass Definition in Renewable Fuels Standard

We previously discussed the language in the new Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in particular those clauses that eliminate federal forests as a source of biofuels material [here, here]. The protests in that regard by numerous involved citizens has borne fruit.

Last week a bipartisan coalition of representatives introduced H.R. 5236 to correct the language in the Energy Act. The following is taken in its entirety from Greg Walden’s website [here].

Herseth Sandlin - Walden Bill Would Promote Development and Use of Cellulosic Ethanol Derived from Wood Waste on Federal Lands

February 7, 2008 - WASHINGTON, D.C.

Last night, Rep. Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) introduced the Renewable Biofuels Facilitation Act (H.R. 5236), legislation that would promote the development and use of cellulosic ethanol derived from woody biomass on federal lands. The bill would significantly broaden the definition of cellulosic ethanol within the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to include more biomass gathered from federal lands.

The Herseth Sandlin – Walden bill addresses a flaw included in The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which included an historic 36 billion gallon renewable fuels standard (RFS). Unfortunately, the legislation’s definition of renewable biomass prevents almost all federal land biomass, such as trees, wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, from counting toward the mandate if it is used to manufacture biofuels. This provision not only discourages the use of such biomass, but in doing so could result in a decrease in responsible forest management by denying land managers an important outlet for the excessive biomass loads that often accumulate on public lands. The Herseth Sandlin – Walden bill would promote the use of energy from waste products gathered on federal lands, including those that are byproducts of preventive treatments and are removed to reduce hazardous fuels, to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation, or to restore ecosystem health.

The Renewable Biofuels Facilitation Act was co-sponsored by a geographically diverse and bipartisan group including Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Mike Ross (D-AR), Chip Pickering (R-MS), Emerson (R-VA), Emerson (R-MO), Goodlatte (R-VA), Bonner (R-AL), J. Peterson (R-PA).

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.):

“The energy bill recently signed into law does a great deal to advance America toward a smarter energy future,” Walden said. “Unfortunately, it woefully underappreciated the role biomass must play in our energy portfolio by excluding biomass produced in federal forest health projects from the country’s new 36 billion gallon renewable fuels standard. Additionally, the energy bill placed onerous restrictions on the use of biomass from private lands.”

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD):

“Currently, the energy bill provides great incentives for innovative entrepreneurs, often working in conjunction with government and academia, to create new ways to make clean, homegrown renewable biofuels in this country,” Herseth Sandlin said. “Unfortunately, current law prevents biofuels made from biomass that originates on public lands or any biomass from private land that is not ‘planted’ and ‘actively managed’ from being counted toward the RFS. This is unfortunate, unnecessary, and unjustified.”

The Renewable Biomass Facilitation Act would change the definition to clarify that federally sourced biomass is eligible for consideration under the renewable fuels standard and is identical to the language included in the Senate’s version of the Farm Bill which passed 79-14 on December 14, 2007. Additionally, the bill would allow RFS credit for broad categories of biomass from non-federal and tribal lands including agricultural commodities, plants and trees, algae, crop residue, waste material (including wood waste and wood residues), animal waste and byproducts (including fats, oils, greases, and manure), construction waste, and food and yard waste.

more »

7 Feb 2008, 9:22pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
11 comments

Bureaucratic Anorexia

Part of the problem is the shrinking of the personnel numbers in the US Forest Service. There simply is not the manpower to get much done. District offices have closed and national forests have “consolidated” themselves into skeleton crews. Received from John:

Many are rightly concerned about the low visibility of Forest Service personnel in their communities.

In FY2002, the agency had 16,348 FTE’s in the National Forest System.
In FY2008, the agency had 11,156 FTE’s in the National Forest System, a 32% reduction.
For FY2009, the President proposes reducing the FTE’s in the National Forest System by another 11% to 9,973.

An example of the sad state of on the ground staffing: a consolidation in one region created a district some 2 million acres in size staffed by 10 FTE position. From a management standpoint, in my view, that is virtual abandonment of the land.

7 Feb 2008, 12:43am
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Damn the Torpedoes

I must make a confession. The last two posts were little bit tongue-in-cheek. The actual facts are:

1. I am not to blame

2. I do not have any power

The real Powers That Be vis a vis the USFS are the folks who write the budgets and allocate the funds. Money is power, and the people who control the purse strings control the bureaucratic elephant.

The Congress, the President, and the top-level bureaucrats steer the boat. Those folks and no one else. The BINGO’s, the environmental sue-happy obstructionists, and to very much diminished degree SOS Forests, are only bumps in the road (icebergs would be a better allusion and keep the metaphor intact). We (including me) can only obstruct and negate. We can get in the way and sometimes stop this or that. We cannot create, cannot initiate, cannot make the USFS do anything they don’t want to do.

We have the power to tear down, not to build up.

When the Powers That Be are engaging in tearing down, as they have been during the last 15 years or so, then no one is creating or initiating. The boat is sinking as a result.

Deep in the backwaters of the USFS, however, there are little pockets here and there of people who are doing their darnedest to keep the boat afloat. At the field level (not everywhere, but some places) a handful of folks are doing the right thing, or trying to.

I am not to blame, nor do I have the power, but I do know the difference between good stewardship and howling at the moon. I know enough to judge the work, and in a few places some very good work is being done. The scale is far too small and the occurrences too rare, but good work is out there.

One purpose behind the new, improved SOS Forests is to highlight and praise the good stewardship when and if I can find any. That’s a tricky thing, though, because the good work flies under the radar. Shining a light on the obscure but laudable project runs the risk of attracting the Tear Down Crowd, and they can be trusted to crush and destroy but little else.

Be that as it may, we will be examining some good projects, despite the risks. Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead.

6 Feb 2008, 5:53pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
5 comments

I Accept Your Obeisance

Not only am I to blame, but it follows that I also hold the power.

Simply by mentioning a USFS project/program on this blog, I shut it down. The other day I posted an extract from the Federal Register about the proposed Thom-Sieder project on the Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest [here]. Within hours complaints came in from the USFS blaming me for sabotaging the entire project, and now it’s defunct, and it’s all my fault.

A year ago I complained about the Wildland Fire Leadership Council violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Federal Government’s response was to shut down the WFLC site and engage a raft of Justice Dept. attorneys in a six-month effort to remake the WFLC into something other than an Advisory Council. All meeting notices and minutes have been squelched ever since. The WFLC held another secret meeting yesterday, and my guess is that SOS Forests and Mike Dubrasich were all they talked about. Their whoofoo program is choking and dying, their budget has been slashed, they are contemplating another 2,500 layoffs, they have alienated the entire country, and it’s all my fault.

Get mentioned on this blog and your career as a public employee is over, just like that. I hold the power to crush and destroy.

It seems unlikely, even outlandish and absurd. But in case after case my blog has wreaked havoc in the agency from Arizona to Boise to Washington D.C.

Many insiders have told me to cool it, allegedly because I am disintegrating the US Forest Service. Frankly, I didn’t believe them. I mean, how pathetic is the USFS if one blog can monkey wrench their trip? Me and my homemade, backwoods, rust-caked computer with a dysfunctional Internet connection are apparently the most powerful influences today on the USFS nationally. Hard to believe but the evidence mounts up.

Never having held this much power before, I’m not sure how to handle it. What if it goes to my head and I become corrupted by my own magnificence? I never had to face a problem like that before. I’ve faced plenty of other problems, but not the burden of commanding and controlling an entire Federal bureaucracy with the stroke of my keyboard.

But fate (or folly) forces me to assume the mantle of power. I accept the obeisance of the USFS, with grace and dignity.

Dear USFS,

Please call me to receive your instructions. I’m in the book. If you do not clear it with me (whatever it is) chances are I will crush and destroy it, sometimes without even trying to. Such is the burden of power; I step on bugs wherever I turn, and sometimes with complete unawareness of the squishing going on beneath my heavy boot heel.

It must be true; you blame me.

Therefore, before you do anything else stupid, please contact me ahead of time. Trying to hide from me is no use to you. I will suss you out, and then slap the kibosh on whatever it is you didn’t want me to know about.

It’s my game now, and you can’t win.

Give me a call. Let’s cut to the chase and move ahead. If you don’t call me today, I can’t save you any grief.

Mike the Powerful

1 Feb 2008, 10:22pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Three Graphs

The last 50 fire seasons in graphical form:

The entire set of three graphs, plus the data, may be downloaded [here] (103KB)

1 Feb 2008, 3:37pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

The Thom-Seider Project

The Klamath National Forest is proposing the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuel Reduction Project. Notification was made today in the Federal Register of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement [here].

SUMMARY: Land managers propose the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuel Reduction Project to reduce fuel hazard and restore forest health on Klamath National Forest System lands. The project area is situated on both sides of the Klamath River between Hamburg and Happy Camp, California. Thinning and understory burning (underburning) is proposed for approximately 30,000 acres of strategic areas selected for their location, topography, stand structure, density, age and condition. The project is intended to reduce the potential for high-severity wildland fires to harm people, private and public land, and older forest habitats.

DATES: Comments postmarked or received by March 7, 2008 are assured of being considered in the environmental analysis. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be published Summer 2008 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled for Winter 2009.

ADDRESSES: Address Comments to: Happy Camp and Oak Knoll Districts Ranger, Attn: Thom-Seider Project, Klamath National Forest, 63822 Highway 96, PO Box 377, Happy Camp, California 96039. You may also send electronic comments to the project e-mail box: comments-pacificsouthwest-klamath-happy-camp@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact District Ranger Donald M Hall or Interdisciplinary Team Leader Rochelle Desser if you have questions, concerns or suggestions relating to this proposal. You may contact Don at Happy Camp Ranger District Office at 530-493-1723 or at donaldhall@fs.fed.us. Rochelle is available by phone at 531-596-2453 or at rdesser@fs.fed.us.

more »

1 Feb 2008, 2:33am
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Threatening Legal Action Over Timber Funds

This interesting and well-written essay regarding O&C lands and the latest legal twist in that convoluted issue is by the Rogue Pundit [here]:

Back in late 2005, I blogged about local efforts to raise the money necessary to sue the federal government for the return of the O&C lands. The thought was that since the feds have stopped living up to the terms of the O&C Act of 1937, they should give us back the O&C lands. The idea isn’t without logic.

To make a long story short, in 1866 the federal government granted a large swath of land to what eventually became the Oregon & California Railroad Company. The railroad was to build a line from Portland to California, selling land on either side of the route to fund the construction. O&C finally completed the project, but tried to keep a bunch of the remaining land. The feds revested that land (current O&C acreage by county here) and promised to compensate the local governments for the loss of property taxes. Here’s how the law clearly puts it.

Section 1181(a) of the 1937 O&C act reads that O&C lands “Shall be managed… for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating streamflow, and contributing to the economic stability of the local Communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.”

But as we know, little harvesting of the O&C lands-sustainable or otherwise-has occurred for years. Most of the land has essentially become a nature preserve (with an increasing fire risk). Thus, the federal government started compensating the O&C counties directly. That funding was lumped in with the money derived from the logging of national forests. It looks like the resulting timber payments from the creatively-titled Secure Rural Schools Act have now come to an end. The feds have reneged on their end of the bargain… [more]

Pelosi Responsible For Excluding USFS Biomass in Energy Bill

Inside sources have revealed to SOS Forests that it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who inserted language into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which disqualifies material gathered from National Forests as a source of renewable biofuels material [here].

Pelosi’s spokesperson revealed that she included the language in the energy bill during an informal conference without debate.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) has introduced a bill, S. 2558, which would amend the Act’s definition of renewable biomass to include, “Materials, pre-commercial thinnings, or removed exotic species that . . . are harvested from National Forest System land or public lands” in accordance with existing Healthy Forests Restoration Act requirements on logging [here].

“To exclude slash piles and other wastes from within our national forests to be counted towards the Renewable Fuels Standard simply makes no sense,” said Thune in a press release. “My legislation will allow national forests like South Dakota’s Black Hills National Forest to be used in a more sustainable manner that will help improve our economy, our environment and our national energy needs.”

John Thune came to the Senate by defeating Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

Thune introduced the bill Jan. 25, which was referred to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. It is likely that Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will NOT hold any hearings or markups on it.

Pelosi opposed the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act. No record exists of any debate on excluding U.S. National Forests from the energy bill, but all sources, including her own spokesperson, point directly to backroom legislative hijacking by Pelosi.

29 Jan 2008, 4:41pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
5 comments

An Open Letter to the SAF Policy Committee

Dear Committee,

I am a practicing professional consulting forester. It has come to my attention that the Wildland Fire Leadership Council will be holding a meeting on Feb. 5, and that they have invited the Society of American Foresters to present a position statement on wildland fire.

Here is my view of the WFLC: they have been captured by pro-fire entities including the Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Society, two big international non-governmental organizations (BINGO’s).

For the last few years the WFLC has been heavily promoting the idea of let-it-burn, variously termed WFU’s, Wildland Use Fires, Wildland Fires Used for Resource Benefit, or “suppression” fires that are more or less unmanned and unfought (de facto WFU’s).

Although no NEPA process has been followed, the WFLC has promulgated maps, models, and statements of intent to let burn more than 50 percent of the entire National Forest system, and is adding more acres all the time. Record fire seasons and record fires have resulted. The largest fires in state recorded history, and/or the most expensive, have occurred in the last ten years in OR, WA, ID, MT, CO, UT, NV, AZ, NM, and CA.

Megafires originating on Federal land have escaped and burned tens of millions of private acres, rural and urban alike. Suppression costs have soared into the $billions per year. But much worse, the damages to forest resources and other assets, public and private alike, has been in the tens of $billions each year this century, and is getting worse year by year.

more »

29 Jan 2008, 3:33pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
1 comment

The Skates Fire

Note: this essay was originally posted at SOS Forests (Old Version) [here].

The following report was sent to me by resident X, who wishes her name hidden to preclude acts of retribution. The report describes the Skates Fire, a 2006 whoofoo (WFU or wildland use fire) on the Gila N.F.

The fire was called the Skates Fire. They lit a back burn during high wind conditions. Stupid. Yes, it was a whoofoo.

They decided to bring the fire within ¼ mile of our property lines. I am not joking here. They put the smoke monitor miles away. I know of one person put in a nursing home that did not come out again due to the Skates Fire.

I forced them after the fire was out of control for 24 hours to suppress. I think I read that rule somewhere. I am not into suppression but when safety and private property is at stake, it makes sense to me not to burn.

The USFS agents were very pissed at me. There was a lot of slander in the local cafes later because I would not let them at 2 AM burn my land.

My horses were freaked out and one colicked that night. The USFS were rocketing the mountain. Burning my sliver of land would not help them, and the way they were burning I was worried they would burn all my fencing, hay, and barn, not to mention jumping the road.

I would not let them come on my land and they were pissed. I had two angry men yelling at me at 2 in the morning. They even had the gall to say, “See what Nature is going to bring you.” They were threatening and intimidating.

I know one of their names.

more »

28 Jan 2008, 9:07pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Charred Roadless Forests Don’t Lie

Chris Horgan of Stewards of the Sequoia [here] sent the following clipping from the Seattle Post-It [here].

The clipping is a Letter-to-the-Editor written by Chris West of the American Forest Resource Council [here].

Mike Dombeck’s guest column on the Roadless Rule ignores reality (”Fight over Roadless Area rule in national forests is purposeless,” [here]).

First, a little history — several western governors asked the Clinton administration to be formal partners in the development of a Roadless Rule as provided for under NEPA — they were denied. Then when the states and public were asked to comment on the proposal, there were no detailed maps on which to make informed assessments. Just think of the all negative editorials had a president proposed a rule involving just a million acres of timber, grazing or mining use without providing detailed maps.

After years, not days, the Bush administration offered a new roadless protection plan where governors could petition the Secretary of Agriculture to protect those truly unique roadless areas within their borders — a process allowing for meaningful public involvement and informed decision making. This was an attempt to find a solution to conflicting court rulings, but this too was challenged in the courts. Thankfully several governors have taken advantage of this new process, drawing lines on maps and getting roadless areas protected in their states.

So where are these catastrophic and budget busting wildfires occurring? They are overwhelmingly in national forests where more than 60 percent of the land is either roadless or wilderness. Both in number of large fires and acres burned. Not only are these unnatural events costing taxes payers billions, but they are destroying critical wildlife habitat, key watersheds, threatening communities and releasing green house gasses. Just look at the devastating fires over the past seven years in Washington and Oregon — blackened and charred roadless forests don’t lie. Some may want to put the blame on the changing climate, but adjacent state and private forests have very different results when these wildfires cross the property boundary.

So, while President Clinton and Chief Dombeck had hoped their legacy was going to be nearly 60 million acres of preserved roadless areas, the reality is a devastated landscape, polluted air, silted streams and not enough money to fulfill the Forest Service’s mission of “Caring for the land and serving the people.”

Chris West — American Forest Resource Council, Portland OR

Thank you Chris and Chris.

Added bonus: for an excellent slide show, see Save Our Forest from the Stewards of the Sequioa [here]

22 Jan 2008, 2:07pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
5 comments

Global Cooling Sets In

There has been no global warming since 1998. The solar cycle that lifted the planet out of the Little Ice Age is over. That worm has turned, and we are headed back into a cooling cycle. This year, 2008 is expected to be the coolest since the early 1990’s. And 2009 will be cooler yet.

Global temperatures are not affected by atmospheric carbon dioxide. The planet is cooling despite “record” levels of CO2 (today’s CO2 concentrations are minuscule compared to paleo-atmospheric concentrations). Humanity has not warmed the planet. Temperatures are dipping despite everything humans do.

The current and former Chiefs of the USFS, Gail Kimbell and Dale Bosworth, both blame global warming for record forest fire acreage during their tenures. The Association of Fire Ecologists went so far as to issue a Declaration calling for direct and immediate conversion of forests to brush via a No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch it Rot, No Regrets policy.

The Wildland Fire Leadership Council, the federal advisory committee that oversees federal firefighting and is dominated by special interest groups, specifically the Nature Conservancy and the Wilderness Society, has launched a “Black, Dead, Burned Forests Are Beautiful” campaign. The propaganda effort is in support of their WFU program, the Let It Burn policy that encompasses most of the western U.S., public and private land alike.

Yes, in December the USFS formally extended its Let It Burn directive to hundreds of millions acres of private land, an official acknowledgment of their de facto policies of the last 15 years.

That announcement comes on the heels of a government-wide “Blame the Victims” approach to addressing the tens of thousands of private homes the USFS has incinerated during the last 15 years. Nearly 90 million acres have burned in wildfires in the last decade and a half, including the largest fires in the history of every western state.

The destruction of America’s public forests has been horrific. Trillions (with a “t”) of dollars in resource values have been lost. Regional economies have been crippled. Wildlife populations have crashed. Millions of acres of heritage old-growth forests have been converted to brush.

But hark! That’s all over now. Since global warming was the cause, now that global cooling has set in the problem has been solved. Right?

Wrong. Global warming was never the cause; bad land management was and is. And since the bad land management promulgated by the USFS and WFLC is getting worse, expect fire seasons to get worse, too, regardless of “climate change.”

Expect more acres, more forests, more homes to be incinerated this year. Your watershed, neighborhood, property has been targeted. It does not matter whether you live in a rural, urban, or suburban setting. Fire does not discriminate. And megafires arising from the deliberate actions (and inactions) of the federal government especially do not discriminate.

The time to act is now. The time to reintroduce stewardship into the landscape is now. The federal government needs to hear that message and get it in gear, now. The mistakes of the last 15 years must be corrected, now.

Regardless of global warming, cooling, or “climate change.”

18 Jan 2008, 11:11pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
4 comments

USFS Alters NEPA Approach

The US Forest Service is redesigning their NEPA approach. Instead of forest by forest creation of NEPA docs (such as Environmental Impact Statements) they plan to concentrate that work in six new NEPA “service centers.”

For an excellent report on this new arrangement, see the Rogue Pundit [here].

Consolidating the Forest Service

In 2006, the Forest Service hired a consultant to study its work involved in satisfying the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The goal was to come up with recommendations for improving efficiency and saving money, with an eye towards possibly privatizing the work. The resulting feasibility study (here) hasn’t exactly impressed the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Here are the calmer parts of the press release…

The U.S. Forest Service is on the verge of approving a massive restructuring that will remove land management planning from individual forests, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The resulting reorganization will affect one in four agency jobs, shrink its on-the-ground firefighting militia and rigidify resource planning.

The plan, called a “Business Process Reengineering,” would consolidate virtually all work performed under NEPA, the basic planning law that shapes significant agency resource management actions. Altogether, nearly 8,000 employees out of the agency’s 30,000 person workforce now perform NEPA-related work. Almost all of this work is done at the forest level.

Under the Business Process Reengineering, all of these functions would be moved into six “eco-based Service Centers” where forest planning would be standardized… [more]

 
  
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta