Month: February 2011

This one from the Huffington Post

In its first sentence this article asserts that the point of the planning rule was to “take more control over the forests”; “hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging”.

I would assert that that we are doing just fine, thank you, with the natural process of coevolution of litigation and agency response. I would argue that the reason for a new rule is:

That the case law around the 1982 rule has become obtuse and unworkable; that timber is no longer a big deal and should be treated as such; that a new rule should take into account the success of place- based collaboration and advisory committees; form a structure for adaptive management; and be cognizant that with the plethora of assessments (state assessments, vulnerability assessments, species assessments) that there is little that is going unassessed and that assessments have a shelf-life. I also agree with Andy that we have plenty of other layers of decisions now, such as oil and gas leasing decisions and travel management, that a forest plan no longer needs to be the comprehensive as it used to be. Monitoring and changing through a formal power-sharing arrangement with an advisory committee of some kind would be so much more 21st century.

As regular readers know, I am a biologist by education and most of my career, and so this quote was interesting:

“This flies in the face of the principal that has been in place, that the Forest Service’s job is to keep common species common,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

If a species is common, it is hard for me to imagine that any project that crosses my desk, or the sum of all these projects, could actually have an impact.

Forest Service Revising Rules In Bid For More Control

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging as well as ecosystem restoration, the U.S. Forest Service said Thursday it was revising its planning rules to take more control over national forests and find more common ground between industry and conservation groups.

The old rules, dating back to the Reagan administration, designated certain animal species that must be protected to assure ecosystems are healthy. However, the system became the basis of numerous lawsuits that sharply cut back logging to protect habitat for fish and wildlife.

The new rules call for monitoring a broader range of species, including plants, while giving forest supervisors greater discretion to decide what science to apply and which species to protect, depending on local conditions.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said from Washington, D.C., that it’s in everyone’s best interest to have forests that stay healthy amid climate change and economic demands.

“Rather than responding to the political pressure of the time, it would be much better to say to the scientists, ‘What is the best way to make this forest the most resilient it can be,'” Vilsack told The Associated Press.

The conservation group that forced the revision by persuading a federal judge to throw out the last one said the proposal represents a dangerous rollback of mandatory protections and gives too much discretion to forest supervisors.

“This flies in the face of the principal that has been in place, that the Forest Service’s job is to keep common species common,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

The 155 national forests and grasslands managed by the agency cover 193 million acres in 42 states and Puerto Rico. Balance between industry and conservation in those areas has been tough to find since the existing rules went into effect in 1982.

One revision of the rules by the Clinton administration and two by the Bush administration were thrown out by federal courts.

Here’s a piece from

Feds Propose Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests

Feds Propose Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests

With climate change posing new threats—more frequent forest fires, for example, and plagues of tree-killing beetles—the U.S. Forest Service is proposing to change the way it makes its management plans for national forests. The goal is to dramatically speed up the 5- to 8-year process, which is currently governed by a 1982 rule that officials describe as expensive and inefficient. The proposed draft, released yesterday, emphasizes the use of scientific evidence in creating management plans, as well as restoring forests so that they are resilient to pests and other stresses. “It’s very important that we get this [natural] system into a healthy state as quickly as possible,” says forest ecologist William Wallace Covington of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, who thinks the changes would be a positive step.

Not all environmental groups agree. Some do not like the latitude given to local supervisors of forests. But Covington says what’s important is allowing supervisors to take actions, such as thinning forests, that will make the overall habitat more healthy. The Forest Service is taking public comments for 90 days.

Here’s one from the Washington Post.

Here’s one from the Denver Post.

New federal management plan focuses on forest health

Obama administration officials on Thursday unveiled a sweeping new framework for managing national forests, saying “multiple uses” can continue but the priority must be improving forest health and resilience.

In Colorado, for example, they want fewer forests dominated by same-species, same-age trees. These are more vulnerable to the beetles that in recent years have ravaged more than 4 million acres in the Rocky Mountain region. The officials say they are aiming for greater diversity.

The nationwide “planning rules” announced by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack replace rules developed 30 years ago that became cumbersome as forest managers tried to balance extractive industry interests with recreation and protection of water resources.

“This is a recognition that all of these uses are important,” Vilsack said in a conference call with reporters.

Forest managers now must figure out “how they can work together, not only to improve the resilience and health of the forests but the economies of the communities that surround the forests,” he said.

Conservationists were scrutinizing a 97-page draft document that lays out the administration’s approach.

Forest Service overseers seem to be “heading in the right direction,” said Mike Francis, director of forest programs for the Wilderness Society, a national advocacy group. “We are encouraged.”

Some are concerned that the national rules leave too much discretion in the hands of regional bureaucrats. The Wilderness Society will be working “to set some definitive standards that would lock in the direction they are going,” Francis said.

U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, a Democrat whose Colorado district includes forest land between Boulder and Aspen, said the new rules provide a better framework for local forest management planning. “Each individual forest will need to make informed and sometimes hard decisions,” he said.

The new planning rules guide the regulation of all activities on 193 million acres across 44 states, divided into 155 forest and grassland management units.

U.S. Forest Service land serves as the source of drinking water for 124 million Americans, including residents of Denver and other cities. Forests also are crucial for wildlife.

But pressures from climate change and energy development have presented challenges.

“Our natural ecosystems are only going to provide for us to the extent that they are healthy. National forest management, more than anything else, determines whether our forests are healthy,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group that successfully sued the Bush administration for failing to protect forests as required.

Courts ruled against the Bush administration’s approach. Obama administration officials decided not to appeal those rulings, which pleased environmental groups. Over the past two years, Obama officials have been developing their own rules.

In Colorado, the Forest Service owns 11.3 million acres, about 47 percent of the federally managed land that covers much of the western half of the state.

Rapidly growing communities are encroaching on those forests. This complicates the job of regional foresters as they develop local management plans that protect wildlife and water.

It’s interesting to compare the perspectives and the people quoted, given in that amount of time since posted it is difficult to assimilate exactly what it all means.

Does anyone know what is meant by:

Some are concerned that the national rules leave too much discretion in the hands of regional bureaucrats. The Wilderness Society will be working “to set some definitive standards that would lock in the direction they are going,” Francis said.

Just so it’s clear, as a “regional bureaucrat”, I would be thrilled to get more discretion.

And, in the Washington Post story

“They give too much discretion to individual forest supervisors” without specific directions, said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. “We don’t know that they’re going to protect species or not. There is no question that this is a rollback to required protection to wildlife habitat.”

Planning rules are pretty complicated. In the spirit of the Common Interest, I propose a contest for a five page briefing paper that most fairly and accurately compares the 1982 and proposed Rules (since “rolling back” seems a characterization in these stories). This might be a good class project. All entries will be posted on the blog and judging will be done by a “fair and balanced” panel. Let’s think about a suitable prize, and due date is March 11- a month from now to be able to share publicly to help inform public comment. The contest is open to individuals and groups.