Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision Litigation

I believe the Rio Grande revision is one of only two developed under the 2012 Planning Rule that have been litigated (the Flathead being the other).  Two lawsuits were filed against the Rio Grande in November 2021.  One of them (Defenders of Wildlife v. U. S. Forest Service) was decided a year ago by the district court and is on appeal to the 10th Circuit.  That case is worth some discussion, so here it is.  There has not yet been a district court hearing for the other case (San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council v. Dallas).  (The Colville revised plan litigation involved the previous 1982 planning regulations.)

On January 27, 2023, the district court upheld the Rio Grande revised forest plan’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act and NEPA for Canada lynx.  The judge framed the issue in this case as whether the Forest failed to “protect the lynx by inadequately limiting logging in the Forest under a revised forest plan in violation of the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).”  The court found no violation of ESA in the Biological Opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it summarily dispensed with the NEPA and ESA claims against the Forest Service as being based on “substantially the same arguments.”

The case involves changing forest plan management direction for Canada lynx from that included in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment in response to insect-killed trees and blowdown over a large portion of the Forest.  The opinion asserts at the outset that, “Petitioner’s position is fundamentally flawed for at least three reasons.”  Two of these are troubling.

The court minimizes (or perhaps rejects) the need for ESA consultation on national forest plans because they are “programmatic,” and (citing the BiOp), “no immediate consequences occur directly to Canada lynx caused by the proposed action,” and therefore “implementation cannot be said to jeopardize the lynx directly.”  If plan cannot jeopardize a species, then there should be no need to consult.

These statements and this conclusion would be contrary to national Fish and Wildlife Service policy on consultation on “programmatic” or “tiered” decisions.  Forest plans are decisions that both promote activities that could adversely affect species through desired conditions and objectives, and limit those activities through standards and guidelines.  Consultation on such decisions is based on the effects that would be allowed to occur using the “design standards” in the decision.  There is no requirement that consequences potentially leading to jeopardy be “immediate.”

The court’s conclusion is also at odds with other cases, which emphasized the broad scope of agency “actions” subject to ESA.  The 10th Circuit has determined that, “Much like the promulgation of a regulation, we have little doubt after Norton that the act of approving, amending, or revising a LRMP constitutes “action” under § 7(a)(2) of the ESA.”  Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1154 (2007).  The 9th Circuit held, “RMPs are actions that “may affect” the protected salmon because the plans set forth criteria for harvesting resources within the salmon’s habitat.”  Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1055 (1994).  A requirement to consult on forest plans must presume that there could be some basis for finding substantive violations of ESA, so this court’s finding of a fundamental flaw here seems fundamentally flawed.

A second “fundamental flaw” results from the fact that, “lynx habitat in the Forest amounts to just over 2 percent of the lynx habitat in the contiguous United States,” and “none of that habitat was designated as critical.”  Therefore, “even if the lynx were extirpated in the Forest, that would not significantly affect the status of the lynx across the contiguous United States.”  This raises questions about the effectiveness of applying ESA’s requirements to wide-ranging species if no individual project or even a forest-wide plan could be viewed as capable of causing jeopardy.  This is a reason why the western lynx amendments were applied across ranges of the lynx, and consultation occurred on multiple national forests simultaneously.  The reasoning the court applied here highlights the risk of now disassembling a regional strategy on a forest-by-forest basis.  Doing so on one forest should arguably trigger the need to reinitiate consultation across the range of lynx (in this case the southern Rockies national forests).

This court’s view of ESA highlights the need to challenge species conservation provisions of forest plans under the viability requirement of the 2012 Planning Rule, even for listed species.  The requirements pertaining to species viability must be met based on their probability of persistence in the “plan area.”  Various statements cited by the court would support a conclusion that lynx are not likely to persist on the Rio Grande National Forest plan area over time.  This argues for strict scrutiny of forest plan components that would allow any adverse effects to occur from management activities.  Similar to ESA, the viability requirement contemplates long-term consequences of multiple activities over time, and effects need not be direct or immediate.  (In another context, the court points out that, “the revised forest plan is intended to remain in effect only until about 2036,” but it may be that management actions during the life of this plan would contribute to the “long-term” decline, which is the test applied by the 2012 Planning Rule).

There is a counter-argument that the 2012 Planning Rule applied the viability requirement explicitly only to “species of conservation concern,” which are defined to not include listed species, for which the requirement is to “contribute to recovery.”  However, at the point at which the species recovers, it should immediately become an SCC (see Planning Handbook §12.52d.2.b) and would need to meet the viability requirement.  Regardless, logic requires that what is needed to “contribute to recovery” should be something beyond what is needed to maintain viability after recovery, and that plan components for listed species must at least provide habitat for viable populations.

This outcome would be consistent with court interpretations of the NFMA diversity requirement under the 1982 planning regulations.  When the Forest Service argued that it did not have to meet the viability requirement for listed species, the 9th Circuit found, “The effect of the Forest Service’s position in this litigation, were it to be adopted, would be to reward the Forest Service for its own failures; the net result would be that the less successful the Forest Service is in maintaining viable populations of species as required under its regulations, the less planning it must do for the diversity of wildlife sought by the statute. This is directly contrary to the legislative purpose of the National Forest Management Act.”  Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 301 (1991).  (The San Luis Valley Ecosystem Counsel claims against the Rio Grande plan include NFMA violations for lynx and the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, but relative to the “contribute to recovery” requirement for listed species, and not the viability requirement.)

The third “overarching flaw” appears to derive from judicial deference principles.  The court specifically notes that, “the Court does not find that the presumption of validity that attaches to agency action is overcome merely because the revised forest plan changes the way the SRLA was previously applied in the Forest.”

The remainder of the opinion discusses the scientific rationale provided by the agencies for their effects analysis and decisions, and finds that they properly address questions raised by plaintiffs, and the court was “not persuaded that implementation of the revised forest plan is likely to make conditions worse for the lynx.”  (Perhaps under stricter scrutiny called for by the NFMA plan area viability requirement the court might have been persuaded.)  So maybe the court’s findings of “fundamental flaws” were just window dressing?

On January 17, 2024 the 10th Circuit held a hearing (listen here) in this case.  I have not read the briefs, but the hearing did not discuss the overarching issues reviewed above, so it appears that they are assuming (and apparently the government did not object) that the Rio Grande revised plan could theoretically cause jeopardy to lynx.

The hearing was narrowly focused on two issues, and particularly on the question of whether the northern portion of the Rio Grande should be managed as an area of low lynx use with less protection, as it is in the revised forest plan.  That turned on the question of best available science.  The only research on lynx that included the northern portion (Ivans) concluded that there could be high lynx use.  The Fish and Wildlife Service concluded otherwise based on discussions with unnamed biologists that were not specifically documented.  Importantly, there is no record of the reasons why the Ivans study was not accepted by the FWS (or the Forest Service).  If there were no conflicting information in the record, the unattributed sources might be sufficient, but that is not the case here.  The FWS conclusions could be considered arbitrary.

The second issue was about the importance of the lynx population on the Rio Grande, and/or the importance of the Colorado lynx population to the listed species.  The record indicated that the Rio Grande lynx are important to the Colorado population.  The FWS had also said elsewhere that all six populations in the lower 48 (the listed entity) are important, but then discounted the current importance of the Colorado lynx population because it was not historically important.  Ultimately the question appeared to be whether the FWS properly considered the importance of these lynx in its jeopardy determination for the species.

We await a decision.

 

 

 

Sensitive species and NFMA?

Los Padres ForestWatch. The California spotted owl is listed as a Sensitive Species by the U.S. Forest Service and by the California Department of Fish and Game as a Species of Special Concern.

This question came up in the fuel treatment post yesterday, but it is worthy of its own post (wonky as it is).  I think there are some misconceptions out there about sensitive species.  This is without refreshing my memory (which I should do more often any more), but I was heavily involved in lots of this.

NFMA does not require identification or protection of sensitive species.  NFMA requires plant and animal diversity.  Habitat for viability is a requirement for diversity in the planning regulations (old and new).  Sensitive species have never been found in the planning regulations.  To the extent there was an implied regulatory requirement in the 1982 regulations, it was for viable populations of management indicator species (MIS).

“Sensitive species” was apparently created by the Forest Service (I’m guessing the Wildlife staff) as a means of both meeting the NFMA viability requirement and preventing listing under ESA, and requirements for sensitive species (including preparation of a Biological Evaluation) were to be applied to both plans and projects. The details may be found in FSM 2670 (which also addresses ESA requirements) and FSM 2620.  The current version of these is dated 2011, prior to the 2012 Planning Rule.  (The agency has frozen up in its efforts to update this manual direction.)

This led to a lot of confusion, even by judges, regarding what was required at the project level.  It sometimes appeared that parties/judges were saying that the NFMA viability requirement applied to each project (like ESA).  At one point (2004ish?), the Forest Service, issued an interpretive rule to clarify that the viability requirement in the 1982 planning regulation applied only to forest plan decisions (unless the plan imposed its own viability requirement on projects, which some did).

It also made this problem a focus of its efforts to produce a new planning rule.  Language now makes it clear that nothing in the 2012 Planning Rule applies to projects, and specifically the new requirements for species of conservation concern (SCC) apply only to forest plans (and projects must be consistent with what the plan says).

Meanwhile, forest plans that are being revised are following the new requirements for species of conservation concern. The Forest Service issued an internal letter to regional foresters on June 6, 2016 explaining that it would phase out the sensitive species designation. It recognized that, “As noted in the preamble to the 2012 planning rule, “[Regional Forester Sensitive Species] are…similar to species of conservation concern.”   It also stated that, “Applying both systems on the same administrative unit would be redundant.” Consequently, “Once a revised plan is in effect, the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list no longer applies to that unit.”

The letter acknowledges that a biological evaluation must still be prepared for a revised forest plan.  The letter doesn’t specifically instruct forests that have not revised their plans to keep preparing BEs for projects, but the Manual direction is still in place, so it is still official policy.

One observation I’ve made in reviewing forest plans revised under the 2012 Planning Rule is that sensitive species are often NOT considered “similar to species of conservation concern.”  Many sensitive species (with “viability concerns”) have not been designated SCC (“substantial concern about the species capability to persist over the long term in the plan area”) during forest planning.  Why is that?

The other thing I’ve seen when forest plans are being revised is that the Forest Service is not doing a very good job of explaining to the public that they are no longer going to have project analysis requirements for at-risk (but not listed) species separate from NEPA, and that some species they used to address at the project-level may not be addressed at all after the forest plan is revised.

Timber sustained-yield requirements for forest plans

In our recent discussion of the Nantahala-Pisgah forest plan revision, Sharon said, “Jon, that raises a question, how is sustained yield considered in the 2012 Rule and regulations?”  Nicholas Holshauser did a pretty good job at answering there, but I want to provide a little more context because it’s a really good question with a complicated answer. I’ve highlighted terms to keep an eye on to help understand this.

Here are the relevant sections of NFMA:

  • 1604(e)

In developing, maintaining, and revising plans for units of the National Forest System pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall assure that such plans—

(2) determine forest management systems, harvesting levels, and procedures in the light of all of the uses set forth in subsection (c)(1) of this section, the definition of the terms ‘‘multiple use’’ and ‘‘sustained yield’’ as provided in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and the availability of lands and their suitability for resource management.

  • 1611(a)

The Secretary of Agriculture shall limit the sale of timber from each national forest to a quantity equal to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis: Provided, That, in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, the Secretary may establish an allowable sale quantity for any decade which departs from the projected long-term average sale quantity that would otherwise be established…  Provided further, That any such planned departure must be consistent with the multiple-use management objectives of the land management plan. Plans for variations in the allowable sale quantity must be made with public participation as required by section 1604(d) of this title (procedures for plan revisions).

The law does not define sustained yield, and other language used here is not self-explanatory.  That is most likely because it merely codifies the historic practice of the agency in its timber management planning, which was thoroughly understood by everyone at the time.  Wilkinson and Anderson take this view in their contemporaneous examination of NFMA where they state:  “The Forest Service has always placed a ceiling on each national forest’s annual timber sales from the suitable land base to insure a perpetual yield of timber” (p. 122), and, “the NFMA requires the Forest Service to follow NDEF policy (see below), with some exceptions.”   That historical understanding was reflected in the 1982 planning regulations, and is still included in the Forest Service timber management planning handbook (§2409.13, Chapter 30).

Thus, sustained yield was always, and would be under NFMA, determined by identifying the land that would be used for timber production (suitable acres) and the volume per acre that would be yielded over time (including any reductions to accommodate other uses), and projecting the maximum harvest that could be achieved per decade over time without declining between any two decades (perpetually).  Sustained yield thus required non-declining even flow of timber volume (NDEF), which was characterized as the “base sale schedule” for a forest plan.  A declining flow would be referred to as a “departure” from this schedule and from non-declining flow.  Because the parameters determining timber volume (acreage and competing uses) would change for each forest plan alternative, the sustained yield would also be different.

The 2012 Planning Rule states:

  • 219.11(d)(6)

“The quantity of timber that may be sold from the national forest is limited to an amount equal to or less than that which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained yield basis. This limit may be measured on a decadal basis. The plan may provide for departures from this limit as provided by the NFMA when departure would be consistent with the plan’s desired conditions and objectives. Exceptions for departure from this limit on the quantity sold may be made only after a public review and comment period of at least 90 days. The Chief must include in the Forest Service Directive System procedures for estimating the quantity of timber that can be removed annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis, and exceptions, consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1611.

Planning Handbook now states

  • (§63.41)

 “The Responsible Official shall determine of the sustained yield limit as the amount of timber that could be produced on all lands that may be suitable for timber production, assuming all of these lands were managed to produce timber without considering other multiple uses or fiscal or organizational capability.

This new “sustained-yield limit” is obviously an entirely different beast.  The acreage used includes lands that are not suitable for timber management, and the projected volume does not reflect other multiple-use decisions made in a forest plan (including such NFMA requirements as plant and animal diversity).  The SYL does not vary by alternative, and would obviously be much higher than under existing forest plans.  And since the replacements for ASQ (PTSQ and PWSQ) are supposed to be based on expected resource conflicts and financial constraints, volume targets based on these figures could never exceed that “capacity.”

The sustained yield “limit” is not actually a limit, and does not serve the purpose intended by NFMA of sustainable harvest volumes through its non-declining flow requirement.  In fact, the Rule (despite requiring consistency with NFMA language) refers to “departures from this limit” instead of departures from NDEF.  While the sustained yield “limit” may be non-declining, there is no determination that the actual harvest volume (PTSQ/PWSQ) could be sustained (unlike the former ASQ).  Consequently, harvest levels (over time) have not been determined for the plan based on all multiple uses or based on NDEF, as required by NFMA.  This seems especially problematic on the Nantahala-Pisgah, where they admit they calculated the sustained yield based on lands suitable for timber production that they claim will never be harvested; that’s an inherent contradiction.  Until someone does the correct analysis, it’s hard to say how these changes affect this plan’s timber volume or whether there is a departure from NDEF that they should have disclosed to the public.

While there was some public involvement in developing the Planning Handbook (much less than for the 2012 Planning Rule), this radical break from tradition (and possibly from NFMA), was not made apparent to the public.  It was only acknowledged in comments when the final Handbook was published.  The Administrative Procedure Act requires effective public notice when an agency changes its procedures to this degree.  There are therefore both substantive and procedural questions about this change in how timber management is being addressed in this and other forest plans.

It has always looked to me like this was a search for the “holy grail” of having their trees and logging them, too.  More to the point, a national forest would have a much expanded land base relative to their expected timber volume targets, so they have a much easier job finding where to meet them.

 

 

 

Coordination with Counties – Lincoln National Forest Plan Revision

Since Sharon has invoked my name twice recently, and not particularly correctly, with regard to the role of local interests in national forest management, I thought I would refocus that discussion on how this is supposed to work for local governments during forest planning using a current example that came along.  It involves the participation (or lack thereof) by a county in New Mexico in the forest plan revision process for the Lincoln National Forest (where a final revised plan is expected soon).

The 2012 Planning Rule §219.4 requires “coordination with other public planning efforts.”  It requires a review of “the planning and land use policies of … local governments, where relevant to the plan area,” which must be displayed in the EIS for the revised forest plan.  It concludes, “(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.”

On March 1, the Eddy County Board of County Commissioners approved a resolution opposing the revised plan.  They stated that, “it is clear that the USFS failed to review, consider and identify planning conflicts between Eddy County and the proposed plan.”  Those alleged conflicts include:

  • would increase restrictions for cattle ranchers with reduced cattle grazing levels and increased financial burdens on cattle producers
  • “creates large areas restricted and potentially inaccessible to the County to fulfill its public health and safety duties”
  • “creates areas that will no longer allow proper wildlife management control increasing the danger to Eddy County citizen’s lives and property”

Eddy County’s resolution asked for a “coordination agreement” between the County and the Forest Service, “To establish roles and responsibilities for both parties, ensuring the citizens of Eddy County are still provided with the necessary services they depend on.”

I would agree that these are all arguably things that should be considered by the Forest Service, depending on what the specific plans or policies of the County say regarding these issues.  (Unlike some earlier attempts at county “coordination,” they do not attempt to claim they have their own plans for national forest lands.)  There is also nothing wrong with a “coordination agreement” to establish roles and responsibilities for “planning efforts,” but this is not something recognized by the Planning Rule, and is not a requirement.  Moreover, the roles and responsibilities for national forest management are established in federal law and regulations; what local residents “depend on” does not dictate national forest management (as indicated by the highlighted language above from the Rule).

In this case, it appears that the County is also trying to close the barn door too late.  According to the Forest, “In 2019 we reached out to Eddy County, inviting them to become a cooperating agency (in accordance with NEPA), which would have allowed them to be more deeply involved in the process of developing the plan, however we received no response from the county. Additionally, Eddy County did not provide any official comments on the forest plan to us.”  (Failure to comment on the plan about the omissions they claim here would disqualify them from filing an objection and probably from suing.)

 

 

Let’s Discuss: Sam Evans’ Observations re: the 2012 Planning Rule

We’ve discussed various aspects of the Pisgah-Nantahala Forest Plan and Sam Evans’ post here and here. Also I posted specifically about the concept of “ecological integrity” and how a sample of partners talk about/use this concept.  This discussion is about “what this plan says about the 2012 Planning Rule.”  First, I’ll lift out some key observations that Sam made in his post. Then I’ll share my own views. Sam’s comments are indented.

Sam

For my part, I cannot believe that the 2012 Rule was intended to fund years-long, expensive processes that don’t produce decisions to solve problems. If we’re simply hoping that we can reach the same compromises again later at the project level, why not reflect them in the Plan now? Why did we accumulate ten years’ worth of analysis and consensus-building only to defer the decisions to the project level, where we can analyze and contest them again and again?

also..

Agency leaders must learn that setting limits during the planning process isn’t at odds with agency discretion but is instead an efficient way to exercise agency discretion

So, if you build much analysis (a full employment program for historic vegetation ecologists, among others)  into a process, it’s going to be long and expensive. I don’t know of anyone who actually believed the Q&A around the rule that said plans would be completed more quickly.  I also don’t think more analysis will necessarily make people agree. Although that’s a great question for our social science friends, “when does more info help?”. In fact, that reminds me of an old (20 years?) NEPA discussion about some topics being more appropriate for collaboration than analysis.

My own experience was that if you build restrictions into the plan, they were still up for grabs at the project level by people of a more protective bent (these include FS employees as well as ENGOs).   Here’s what I’ve heard..”in this case it needs extra protection due to….” or “the latest scientific paper says” or “now we need to consider x about climate change, ” that wasn’t in the plan.  Again, in my experience, people will require the FS to analyze at the project level.  This actually makes sense on so many levels, as the analysis is both site-specific, and as current as possible (the best available science should get better through time, we would think.)

It sounds like what the collaborative group did is set a general direction or shared vision of what should happen where, with least disagreement.  While that doesn’t have to happen in a Plan, it does seem like a very useful exercise.  Did it need all the analysis? That would be a good question for the (hopefully there is one) team that is reviewing “Ten Years of the 2012 Rule: Lessons Learned.”

2 Sam

Identifying and ensuring progress toward restoration goals: It is possible to develop broadly supported reference conditions for ecological restoration in distinct ecological systems, even in highly altered eastern forests.

This is great news! However, there can be different views about the details of restoration as a target in the dry West, especially with regard to wildfire resilience and community protection. Also it will take quite a bit of management funds over time to develop wildfire resilience and to keep it up.  Perhaps this is a simpler issue in mesic forests. However, the need for funding to do things and how that relates to what’s in the plan is still an issue.

3 Sam

Collaboration works best, however, when agency staff are willing to work toward solutions as participants. The agency should communicate better about its own institutional needs and limitations to support consensus-building around new approaches that will work for partners and the agency alike.But it is essential that planners understand they need the public’s help to find the right answer, and they must be willing to reflect consensus in the plan itself—to share decision space.

This goes back to what Jon often says about local people not making decisions about federal land. Even FACA committees are advisory. How much should collaborative groups’ agreements influence 1) the Plan itself, 2) PPPPD (post-Plan project prioritization and design)?

4. Sam

Although the planning rule’s fiscal capability requirement is important, it should not be a straitjacket forcing planners to choose between(a) trying to justify doing the wrong things because they can pay for themselves and (b) doing nothing at all. Surmounting this problem requires a willingness to innovate beyond the planning rule’s text. Tiered objectives and adaptive management triggers offer a platform to justify additional funding, incentivize partner contributions, and get more done. But doing more is not an end in itself. A pacing mechanism is essential to ensure that the easiest or most commercially viable work does not displace higher priority work or get ahead of mitigation needs. Both of these innovations can be incorporated into traditional plan components.

It seems to me that both tiered objectives and adaptive management triggers are about PPPD, and somewhat about trust.  It sounds like folks want to help match the budget and target needs with what projects go forward.  This makes a lot of sense, perhaps via an annual input session into a proposed plan of work. I still am having trouble seeing the added value of putting something,. which seems like it should be flexible with changes in needs and conditions, into the Plan. Which, if history holds, will be outdated sooner than updated.  Here’s a very helpful comment from Sam from a previous discussion that explains how they got to these concepts (it was partially about the need to get agreement on both more intensity of management and more protection).  Still, other non-involved ENGO’s could still hold up any projects via litigation.  That seems to be one of the apples vs. kumquats of doing deals where  tradeoffs are not equivalent, nor can be made so (I could be wrong) “not doing things” and “possibly doing things if no one else objects” tradeoffs.  Think of the matrix in the NW Forest Plan.

4. Sam

Can the agency commit to work for better outcomes, build trust, and demonstrate its relevance to a public that is increasingly worried about the climate and biodiversity crises? Or will it teach the public that restoration is just another euphemism for business as usual? The next few months will tell.

I think the agency can, and does, do all that outside of the NFMA planning process. Are we laying too much responsibility on a cumbersome process for the FS to move toward those goals? Are mesic forests that fundamentally different from dry forests? I don’t think anyone has questioned the “relevance” of the FS in our neighborhood… fire suppression, recreation, and so on.

Readers: What did you expect from the 2012 Planning Rule, and the plans based on it? If you were pleased by or disappointed in aspects of a plan, please share your story here.  People who were involved in TSW (NCFP) as the 2012 Rule was being developed, feel free to link to your expectations as described at that time.

Managing For Ecological Integrity and Other Choices Made by Forest Service Partners

I’m going to take a quick break from discussing Sam Evan’s ideas about the 2012 Rule in practice to focus on the concept of “ecological integrity”. We had a good discussion in the comments on our previous post. Here we can talk about the ways FS partners (in the interest of “all lands, all hands”) look at the same issues, and what abstractions and concepts they use.

It seems to me that the Forest Service is sticking out a bit- abstraction-wise among its partners. So I thought I’d review a few partners and see what they use as abstractions. Interestingly, I found that they tend to be more focused on utility going forward and responding to climate change than patterns from the past. The words seem to be more.. well.. pragmatic. I still think we haven’t adequately explored the landscape between a perhaps neurological or education-based inclination toward the concrete or the abstract and how that plays out in policy development.

Here’s what Jon said in this comment

The definition they are supposed to use is in the Planning Rule: “Ecological integrity. The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.” “NRV” is not defined in the Rule, but (despite the Planning Handbook) is generally conceived as being sustainable considering both past and future conditions.

It won’t be a surprise to anyone that I was not a fan of putting this into the Rule. Mostly because it’s a concept that “if we went back to the past, then systems would be sustainable” as Jon says in his last sentence. One problem with this, abstraction-wise, is that you could just stop with “sustainable” then and not move on to “integrity.” But that would perhaps lead us down the stream channel of historical Planning Rule Abstraction Artifacts into the eddy of the Committee of Scientists disagreements about the preeminence of “ecological sustainability” or not. I don’t think anyone wants to go back there.

The second problem is that someone has to pick which past, as per influence of Native Americans, and that some things can go back (vegetation structure, perhaps?) and others not so much (genetics). And those problems have been discussed quite a bit in the literature. So there are quite a few value judgments cloaked under the mantle of “it’s science!”.

The third difficulty is that it seems to me that the concepts “climate change will cause devastating unknown responses in ecosystems” and “what used to be will be sustainable in the future” are fundamentally in conflict.

The Forest Service made “ecological integrity” more or less a target (how legal that is in an NFMA regulation remains to be seen). Other agencies use it as a construct for one thing they do (habitat or watershed), and sometimes it’s an assessment to inform decisions with another set of goals. Sometimes it’s just a word that could be substituted with “health” with little loss of meaning.

So let’s take a look at how some other agencies are handling this.

First, the 2020 Washington State Forest Action Plan. It mentions integrity by my count seven times in a 128 page document.
“health and integrity of many species and habitats”, “water quality and habitat integrity (Habitat Condition Index), ” “integrity of rivers and streams”, re the Chehalis Basin “Climate change, invasive species, land conversion, and fragmentation threaten the ecological integrity of forests throughout the watershed,” “Ecological Integrity Assessment,” and “fish habitat integrity”. As I think Anonymous said, it’s different to use the concept of EI as an assessment tool than a target.

In her cover letter, Commissioner Franz says: “Collectively, the priorities and goals identified in this plan enhance and protect ecosystem resilience, promote healthy and vibrant urban and rural communities, and strengthen the partnerships required to address the pressing threats facing forests today.”

Next we’ll turn to our own fellow multiple-use agency, the BLM. This is from the Uncompahgre RMP completed in 2021. I picked it at random.

Alternative B emphasizes improving, rehabilitating, and restoring resources and sustaining the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species, while allowing appropriate development scenarios for allowable uses, such as mineral leasing, locatable mineral development, recreation, rights-of-way (ROWs), and livestock grazing. Goals and objectives focus on environmental and social outcomes achieved by sustaining relatively unmodified physical landscapes and natural and cultural resource values for current and future generations.

They did mention ecological integrity.. but of “habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species”…This seems a bit more concrete (first you prioritize species, then you check their habitats) than the FS “composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity.” Also “sustaining relatively unmodified..values”. I like how they just come out and say it..”we want things not modified to stay unmodified, at least relatively unmodified.”

This scientific paper says after the authors studied EIAs on BLM lands in Nevada:

We suggest that ecological integrity assessments for multiple-use lands be grounded in existing policies and monitoring programs, incorporate resource- and stressor-based metrics, rely on publicly available data collected at multiple spatial scales, and quantify both natural reference and societally desired resource conditions.

But if they are everything (societally desired?) are they really EIA’s? And note that this study says you can assess EI for “multiple use lands”. Again, a measure of potential interest and value, not a target.

Another interesting one is this post-fire plan by American Forests and the BLM for the Camp Fire Restoration Plan.

The Camp Fire Reforestation Plan will improve forest health and resilience, enabling ecosystems to better withstand environmental stressors and recover from disturbances; reduce hazardous fuels and increase community safety; improve wildlife habitat and riparian/wetland functionality; improve plant community diversity and forest structural diversity; identify feasible, cost-effective strategies and plans that can be maintained long term; and protect soils by reducing sedimentation, preventing erosion and promoting a vegetation community that will stabilize soils.

In 67 pages, I ran across one mention of ecological integrity: “Fuel treatments, like prescribed fire and mastication, can be used to reduce fire risk while maintaining the ecological integrity of chaparral.”

Of course, post-fire is different from forest plans or RMPs, but if we believe the UNEP study then much of future forest management will be exactly that.

It seems to be that “climate adaptation and resilience” is something that people can discuss how -to’s and pros and cons of different approaches, including what the past tells us about how to move forward, perhaps more among all the future possibilities and mechanisms of adaptation, than simply moving toward NRV. As if we know “within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.” As if we know there is even is an overlap in that Venn Diagram, and as if we know in advance what can recover and what cannot from the human influence of climate change.

More Discussion Topics from Sam Evan’s Piece on The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision

Reflecting both on Sam Evan’s piece and the associated comments, I’d like to pull out some additional observations of his for further discussion. This is the first of two posts.

First, I’d like to point out that I’m interested in posting thoughts of anyone who experienced the 2012 Rule process, either as a stakeholder or as an employee (this perhaps would be difficult even with anonymity for current employees, so perhaps a recent retiree).  Sam was kind enough to offer this in response to a protracted campaign (years of harassment?) by me, but others are also welcome to submit.

Then, on to my thoughts.

TSW readers well know that I am not a fan of the abstraction “ecological integrity”.  Nor NRV, for that matter.  But how do people actually work through these abstract concepts in real (or at least planning) life?
So I was pleasantly surprised to find that Sam thinks (1)

First, and crucially, the Plan does provide detailed, well-supported desired conditions for each ecological community, or “ecozone.” Plan at 54–64. These reference conditions are grounded in the best available science and provide unifying direction for future management. Each set of “key ecosystem characteristics” describes characteristic species composition from the canopy to the forest floor, plus characteristic disturbance patterns and structure.

 
I would have been concerned about “how do we know what the landscape was like prior to the reduction in population/removal of Native Americans?” How can we possibly get Vegetation Desired Condition targets that are pre-Native American influence, or is our goal to emulate their activities? I also think about the American Chestnut, not coming back in the foreseeable future. Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they (the FS) apparently figured this out and the partner group agreed.

Sam also says “Still, much of the landscape is recovering well: pockets of old growth, disturbance-sensitive species, and backcountry areas large enough to allow for natural disturbance processes to resume.” That would be “natural disturbance processes subject to invasive diseases and insects, and climate change” so perhaps more clear would be “disturbance processes without local human intervention.”

(2) There is a tension between the existence of a “big blanket” suitable timber base, and the assumption that the forest will plan projects on all the acres in the suitable base. For example, Sam says “On average, therefore, 20% of harvests proposed under the new Plan are guaranteed to generate conflict” and what really happens on the landscape. Another example is “even-aged harvest is scheduled on a whopping 58% of the landscape.” See, I don’t interpret acres in the suitable timber base as being “scheduled”.. But that’s based on the model in my head of how this works (based on my own observations). To me, suitable acres are a big blanket. When FS folks decide where to put a sale, they use all kinds of different factors to decide where to put it… including where it will be less contentious. I don’t recall any forest (and for sure I don’t know them all) where everything in the suitable base was actually entered for timber management.

I don’t know what the suitable base was under the previous plan, but Sam says the forests were actually harvesting 750 acres per year. Now I don’t know if my numbers are right so please check but I added up the two forests’ acreages and got 1,044,000 million acres. At 750 acres per year, for a 30 year plan, 30 years or 22,500 acres and 2% of the Forests. At that rate, they would hit 2% rather than all 58% of the suitable.

(3) Which leads us to the issue of Post Plan Prioritization. Once you have the blanket (suitable base) where does the FS actually propose projects? It seems to me that Sam is arguing for more “Post Plan Project Prioritization” PPPP in the Plan itself. But there are other approaches that might work, like the less formalized “Zones of Agreement” approach that occur elsewhere. Actually, it sounds like it occurred here too, so the question is how formalized should it be? It seems like the other Zones of Agreement are more like a living process than a codified one. So this is a topic for discussion.. advantages and disadvantages or more or less codified PPPP?

(4) I also see both “Adaptive management “triggers” to gauge whether the Forests have the capacity to mitigate negative impacts before moving to stretch goals” and A “pacing” mechanism to ensure that high-consensus restoration occurs alongside scheduled harvest” as sub-plan level sideboards of a kind that are not exactly found in the 2012 Rule. The Rule says to monitor anyway, so why develop triggers in advance? Maybe those make more sense as an ongoing dialogue among partners and the Forest than a codification for likely to be thirty years?

But those are enough discussion points for now… next post will be on Sam’s more general observations about the 2012 Rule.

Better intentions; fewer commitments :The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision: TSW Exclusive by Sam Evans

I’ve been wanting to hear from stakeholders involved with 2012 planning processes.  Many thanks to Sam Evans for taking the time to share his experiences.  I’m sure this will lead to a great discussion!  In addition to the specifics of this plan, we can reflect on the overall context of the 2102 Rule, as Sam says  “This is also a make-or-break moment for the planning rule. Ten years in, there are no more excuses. The rule is not in transition any more. What the rule means here, now, is what it really means.”

**********************************************************************************************************************

Better intentions; fewer commitments
The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision by Sam Evans

As the 2012 planning rule approaches its tenth birthday, another early-adopter is finally nearing the finish line. What does the Nantahala-Pisgah planning process tell us about whether we’re realizing the planning rule’s potential? Here’s a short history of a long process.

Black Mountains, Pisgah National Forest

Background

The contiguous Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in western North Carolina are the heart of the Southern Appalachian mountains. Managed as a single administrative unit, these forests are the third most visited in the National Forest System, and the most visited without a ski resort. The forests here are marvelously diverse and bewilderingly complex. A short walk can take you, ecologically speaking, the entire length of the Appalachian Trail, which incidentally passes through the area on its way from Georgia to Maine.

Ecosystems repeat in small patches, with more variation and texture than stanzas in a Coltrane improvisation. A few acres here and there, riffing across the landscape. Dry, fire-adapted forests intermingle with moist Appalachian coves, which are among the most diverse ecosystems outside the tropics.

Those moist and productive cove forests also grow valuable sawtimber. And, like other productive forests with big trees, they have tempted mismanagement and abuse. The Forests have been through at least two periods of unsustainable logging, once before Forest Service acquisition, at the turn of the 20th century, and another after, in the 1980s. There is plenty of work needed to restore degraded forests’ composition, structure, and processes. Still, much of the landscape is recovering well: pockets of old growth, disturbance-sensitive species, and backcountry areas large enough to allow for natural disturbance processes to resume.

These remnant and recovering conservation values have been a source of conflict. Much more often than not, projects have created a zero-sum choice between harvest and environmental protection. The Forests’ first plan, adopted in 1987 at the height of the timber wars, was remanded by the Chief before the ink was dry in response to protests to end rampant clearcutting and protect old growth.

The 1994 amended plan fared little better. Without public support for timber production, the agency shifted its rationale, pitching rotational harvest as a way to balance age classes for the benefit of wildlife. But the timber program itself didn’t change. Old growth, rare habitats, and unroaded areas were still scheduled for rotational harvest, and the agency dutifully attempted to implement the plan at their expense.

Attempted, but without much success. While the 1994 plan amendment promised up to 3,200 acres of timber harvest annually, the agency has been able to produce just a fraction of this, with recent averages around 750 acres each year. Even at low levels of timber harvest, at least some conservation priority areas have been prescribed for even-aged harvest in most projects under the 1994 plan, and the ensuing conflicts have been a tremendous drag on efficiency, resulting in wasted time and dropped stands. In fact, the Nantahala & Pisgah NFs have the highest rates of project-level attrition of any forest in the ecoregion.

Changes between Project Proposal and Decision – Southern Appalachian NFs (2009–2019)

Fortunately, stakeholders have found better ways to work together. In some Districts, stakeholders built a shared, collaborative understanding of how timber harvest could be used to restore degraded systems. Capable agency leaders reflected their consensus at the project level and found new ways to fund important work that wasn’t always viable on its own. Although not uniformly, things got better.

This story, as unique as it felt to us locally, was happening in similar ways in different places across the country. Stakeholders were finding ways to transcend conflict. It was the right time to unveil the new planning rule, which sought to build on the insights earned in local laboratories: ecological restoration is a unifying goal, and consensus is the surest way to identify the highest priority restoration work.

The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan

Local stakeholders were so excited to put the planning rule into practice that they formed a planning collaborative in 2012, well before the agency kicked off its own process with a 2014 Assessment. While the process has not been without hiccups, the Nantahala Pisgah Forest Partnership has generated comments and recommendations with full consensus at each major step of the process including detailed recommendations on the Draft Plan in 2020. Full disclosure: I am proud to be a member of the Partnership, but I am speaking here only for myself.

The Partnership’s agreements cover every major issue from recreation to timber to recreation to wildlife habitat to wilderness. Without taking away from the importance of other issues, my focus here is on the ecological, social, and economic issues orbiting the Forests’ timber harvest program. The “where, how, and why” of logging were subjects of intense debate and compromise in the collaborative setting. The agency likewise spent most of its attention on goals that could be achieved through use of timber harvest.

The Partnership’s agreements were meant to be taken as a whole, and they recognized that management levels could increase considerably while also improving ecological outcomes if the Forest Service would commit to do the right kinds of things in the right places and provide safeguards for disturbance-sensitive ecological values.

The Final Plan, released in late January, purports to hit those targets:

Unlike the previous plan that framed activities in terms of outputs and traditional standards and guidelines, the revised plan developed desired conditions for each ecological community. By using ecological communities, projects will consider needs across a broader landscape, better enabling an increase in pace and scale of restoration.

Reader’s Guide at 5. The plan attributes these ostensible improvements to collaborative input, noting that collaborative stakeholders “created innovative approaches and processes” that “helped to create a more fully implementable plan.” FEIS App’x H at 12.

If only the plan content lived up to those intentions.

 Does the Plan prioritize ecological restoration?

First, and crucially, the Plan does provide detailed, well-supported desired conditions for each ecological community, or “ecozone.” Plan at 54–64. These reference conditions are grounded in the best available science and provide unifying direction for future management. Each set of “key ecosystem characteristics” describes characteristic species composition from the canopy to the forest floor, plus characteristic disturbance patterns and structure. They explain, for example, that within moist, productive ecozones, disturbance is dominated by gap-phase dynamics, which produce a pattern of small gaps and fine-scale diversity. Dry forests, on the other hand, should have larger patches and relatively more young and open forest conditions. These key ecosystem characteristics, moreover, are essential to maintain and restore wildlife diversity: some species need small gaps within mature forests, while others need larger patches. Plan at 64; FEIS App’x D at 12. The Forest Service got the reference conditions absolutely right.

After painstakingly describing the key ecosystem characteristics for each ecozone, however, the Plan disclaims any requirement to move toward these desired conditions. The mantra is repeated throughout the planning documents: Projects may “locally deviate from the [natural range of variation]” in order to balance age classes at the forest-wide scale. Record of Decision (ROD) at 66. That’s because the Plan’s default tool is scheduled, even-aged harvest. Plan at 91, TIM-DC-06 (describing scheduled timber program). This type of harvest will occur even in ecozones where large-patch early seral habitat is uncommon under ecological reference conditions. While the Plan sets a modest target for creation of open forest conditions in fire-suppressed, dry forests, it anticipates that the overwhelming bulk of harvest will be even-aged and located in mesic systems. FEIS App’x D at 46-49 (modeling the anticipated timber sale program).

This program of work would not restore characteristic, fine-scale structural diversity in ecozones where it is needed. Indeed, the agency acknowledges that fine-scale disturbance processes aren’t currently happening at natural rates because the forests are in an even-aged condition due to past logging. ROD at 66. A mostly-even-aged harvest program would keep the forest on a treadmill that precludes reaching ecozone desired conditions for structure. The Plan would also allow the continued degradation of species composition caused by even-aged harvest where it is ecologically inappropriate. See FEIS at 3-160 (acknowledging that “less is known about the silvics and reestablishment” of characteristic species in cove ecozones).

The planning team does express an intention to do better work than the Plan’s bare minima. The Plan lists a few “management approaches” to address conditions where there is general support that timber harvest will improve species composition and structural diversity at relevant scales. Plan at 71-72. As recent projects demonstrate, however, intentions aren’t binding at the project level. Neither are management approaches. Targeted, site-specific restoration is an explicit goal only in the “Ecological Interest Area,” which covers 2.1% of the landscape. ROD at 56. Meanwhile, even-aged harvest is scheduled on a whopping 58% of the landscape.

Of the “suitable” management areas, moreover, over 100,000 acres (about 20%) are existing old growth, rare habitats, and wilderness inventory areas that have already been mapped by NGOs, the state, and the Forest Service, respectively. On average, therefore, 20% of harvests proposed under the new Plan are guaranteed to generate conflict—a depressing reminder of the 20% attrition rate that has dogged the old plan. When projects are developed in these areas, there are no standards or guidelines protecting their unique values. Whether to harvest old growth is left entirely to the District Ranger. State-delineated rare habitats can be harvested after “coordination” with no strings attached. Unroaded areas may be roaded without limitation. As in the old plan, conflict is the only backstop to prevent harm to these values.

The Forests argue that even-aged harvest counts as “structural restoration” anywhere it occurs, including areas with high conservation value, because it will restore young forest conditions at the landscape scale. But the Forests did not define restoration at the landscape scale; they correctly recognized that restoration means different things in different ecozones, which is why the Plan sets desired conditions at the ecozone scale. Yes, young forest is an important component of structural diversity, but the characteristic patch size and distribution of young forest is different in each ecological system, and those differences matter to the wildlife associated with each system. Ecological restoration in the Southern Appalachians simply cannot be reduced to “balancing age classes” at the landscape scale.

Why would the Forests set desired conditions for its ecozones but then forecast that it will ignore them in project after project? According to the agency, targeted, site-specific restoration actions to restore key ecosystem characteristics for ecological communities would be too expensive. Without scheduled harvest, “there would not be enough financial resources” to execute a self-sustaining timber sale program. ROD at 56. Timber receipts. Economic efficiency. The philosophy of the 1982 Rule lives on.

To sum up, the Forests argue they cannot restore characteristic species composition and structure at the desired levels with current budgets, so they conclude they must take actions that individually will not contribute to NRV, and when added together will be inconsistent with NRV. That is not how the planning rule works. The planning rule requires each planning unit to maintain and restore NRV, 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.8(a)(1); 219.19, and to ensure that its objectives are within its fiscal capability, id. § 219.1(g).

Failing to identify types and levels of restoration work that can be achieved with expected budgets isn’t just bad planning; it also creates a self-defeating cycle. Without clear price signals, agency higher-ups (much less Congressional appropriators) will not know how much funding is needed to truly restore our forests. By conflating ecological restoration with scheduled timber harvest, a local Forest may preserve some future flexibility to continue with a timber sale program even when budgets are low, but it undermines its own ability to seek and justify the budgets it needs to do the most important work.

This is not to say that there is no room for timber production on the Nantahala-Pisgah, or that the Forests must set trivially small objectives that do not meet economic or social needs. The Partnership offered consensus recommendations that would have allowed the Forest Service to grow its timber program while also meeting its ecological restoration obligations. Did any of that work make it into the Plan?

 

Does the Plan reflect collaborative input?

The Partnership reached consensus and provided detailed input at every major checkpoint of plan development, covering the full range of issues from land allocation to wilderness recommendation to plan components. Boiled down, our recommendations for vegetation management included:

Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership Recommendations

Increased levels of timber harvest at current budget levels

 

paired withProtections for steep slopes and streams, old growth, areas with high diversity, and rare habitats

 

“Tiered objectives” (Stretch goals) to allow the Forests to increase levels of timber harvest even further if additional resources are availablepaired withAdaptive management “triggers” to gauge whether the Forests have the capacity to mitigate negative impacts before moving to stretch goals

 

Scheduled timber production on a suitable base that excludes areas known to have high potential for conflict

 

paired withWilderness recommendations that would be supported for designation after meeting benchmarks for success in plan implementation

 

An unsuitable management area that allows for the use of all appropriate tools, including timber harvest and road construction, to accomplish ecological restoration based on site-specific needs

 

paired withBackcountry management in which restoration would occur primarily by use of natural disturbance and prescribed fire
A high degree of flexibility to develop stand-level prescriptions

 

paired withA “pacing” mechanism to ensure that high-consensus restoration occurs alongside scheduled harvest

 

In short, the Partnership asked the agency to increase harvest levels and improve ecological outcomes—to “do more, better work.” To succeed with current budgets, we knew that we needed to avoid unnecessary conflict. Each of the recommendations was therefore calibrated to proactively address tensions that would otherwise create project-level friction.

For example, all members supported levels of harvest that are beyond the Forest Service’s current capacity, provided that increasing harvest levels does not exacerbate the road maintenance backlog (a proxy for risk to water quality) and the spread of non-native invasive plants. So, we proposed “tiered objectives,” or stretch goals, which were accompanied by adaptive management triggers (e.g., reduction of the road maintenance backlog, treatments levels for invasive plants). When we can demonstrate that we can keep up with the work needed to mitigate negative impacts at Tier 1, then we know we are within our fiscal capability to stretch to Tier 2.

As another example, some members strongly felt that project-level flexibility was essential to meet restoration needs in viable timber sales, but other members were worried that commercial realities would lead to too much even-aged harvest in the wrong ecozones, like coves. These are inherently plan-level questions: how much is too much? Failing to answer those kinds of questions in the plan will create the conditions for sustained conflict at the project level. To avoid that, we proposed a pacing mechanism. We asked the Forest Service to track types of harvest and ensure that at least half of the total is in one of several priority treatment types—common conditions where timber harvest (including commercial harvest) can maintain or improve stand-level composition or function.

These were innovations we believed would not only solve local problems, but might also be useful for other forests with similar challenges. Indeed, some kind of pacing mechanism is essential to meet the goals of the 2012 rule. Ecological restoration does not have a cookie-cutter solution. It requires some measure of flexibility to do the right things at the project level, but it also requires some mechanism to ensure that we’re doing them in the right proportions in the right places in the longer term.

Unfortunately, the Forests rejected these carefully balanced recommendations. They agreed to increase timber harvest levels, but declined to include any pacing mechanism to ensure that the types and proportions of harvest would restore ecological integrity. They adopted tiered objectives, but they declined to adopt the triggers needed to determine when we are ready to move to the more ambitious targets. They emphasized scheduled timber harvest, but declined to limit it to areas without high potential for conflict. They created an ecological restoration management area but declined to put any substantial acreage in it, instead enlarging the suitable base.

Despite these choices, it’s hard to argue that the planning team has not been committed to public process. At stakeholders’ request, the DEIS alternatives were deliberately calibrated to keep stakeholders from retreating to their corners. During plan revision, planners attended dozens of meetings. Specialists were generous with their time and expertise. And the agency clearly expects the collaborative process to continue into implementation. Plan at 25.

Yet the Forest Service did not roll up its sleeves and actively engage in the process of developing collaborative solutions. Agency thinking happened in a black box, with progress revealed only during formal public comment periods. ID Team meetings were closed, and there was minimal dialogue or feedback. With a Plan that describes work far outside the zone of consent, it appears that consensus proposals were not understood or valued. As a result, it is hard to trust that the agency’s commitment to the collaborative process will result in implementation of collaborative outcomes. Indeed, if project-level discretion and collaboration were enough, we wouldn’t need a new plan.

Here’s how things look in hindsight: Dozens of professionals and volunteers spent eight years working to build consensus at the Forest Service’s request. We were asked to put aside past conflicts created by a parade of zero-sum projects and to imagine a different future. We were asked to be ambassadors to our respective communities. And we showed up. We stretched our comfort zones to the limit, and we handed the agency a roadmap for ecological and social sustainability. Meanwhile, the Forest Service was digging a moat around the plan it intended to finalize from the start—a plan that makes our work irrelevant.

 

The 2012 Rule after 10 Years

There you have it. Better intentions; fewer commitments.

I realize that some of you will read that as a good thing. Some will argue that increased agency discretion will result in bigger accomplishments. Others will note that a lack of protective standards will cause greater harm. Still others will hope that, despite a lack of clear plan direction to protect conservation values and restore key ecosystem characteristics, we will find a way forward anyhow. That the relationships, improved understanding, and good intentions formed during the past ten years will help us design successful projects in the next fifteen. (“The real plan is the friends we made along the way!”)

For my part, I cannot believe that the 2012 Rule was intended to fund years-long, expensive processes that don’t produce decisions to solve problems. If we’re simply hoping that we can reach the same compromises again later at the project level, why not reflect them in the Plan now? Why did we accumulate ten years’ worth of analysis and consensus-building only to defer the decisions to the project level, where we can analyze and contest them again and again? These questions, moreover, are bigger than any single plan revision: why should self-respecting stakeholders invest years in future collaborative processes if their collective input can be so dismissively rejected? In the interest of protecting both agency and stakeholder time investments in this planning process and encouraging similar investments in future planning processes, the Forest Service should make decisions now that will reflect consensus and improve efficiency during implementation.

If the Nantahala-Pisgah’s Revised Plan is any indication, we have a long way to go to realize the promise of the 2012 Rule. I continue to believe that the Rule’s innovations—ecological restoration and consensus-building—are the agency’s path to continued relevance, but the 2012 Rule will ultimately be judged by the projects (and, unfortunately, by the conflicts) that it produces. Based on our local experience, what is working for the Rule, and what are the challenges?

  • Identifying and ensuring progress toward restoration goals:It is possible to develop broadly supported reference conditions for ecological restoration in distinct ecological systems, even in highly altered eastern forests. There is good scientific information available, much of it developed by partners and agency professionals working together.It is harder to craft plan components that can make meaningful progress toward reference conditions with anticipated budgets. The problem is simple: under an ecological restoration paradigm, the highest-priority work is often the least economical. On the other hand, there is a real potential for increasing budgets in coming years. Although the planning rule’s fiscal capability requirement is important, it should not be a straitjacket forcing planners to choose between (a) trying to justify doing the wrong things because they can pay for themselves and (b) doing nothing at all.Surmounting this problem requires a willingness to innovate beyond the planning rule’s text. Tiered objectives and adaptive management triggers offer a platform to justify additional funding, incentivize partner contributions, and get more done. But doing more is not an end in itself. A pacing mechanism is essential to ensure that the easiest or most commercially viable work does not displace higher priority work or get ahead of mitigation needs. Both of these innovations can be incorporated into traditional plan components.

    Increasing the pace and scale of ecological restoration also requires more thoughtful and efficient land allocations. The Forest Service must ensure that known conservation assets are not mapped into suitable management areas, where plan-level acreage and volume goals take priority over local values by default. Such allocations inevitably will result in continued project-level conflict and attrition. Conflict as a sideboard for conservation values can only “work” at low levels of harvest; it will not allow us to scale up without damaging ecological values and the public trust.

  • Supporting, participating in, and reflecting collaborative work:The Forest Service has learned a great deal about how to create opportunities for collaboration and to provide support to its stakeholders with information and resources. This was an important goal of the planning rule, and the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs have taken it seriously.The agency “black box,” however, remains a major obstacle to effective collaboration. When planners believe they know the right solution already, they are likely to shield the messy parts of the process from scrutiny. Collaboration works best, however, when agency staff are willing to work toward solutions as participants. The agency should communicate better about its own institutional needs and limitations to support consensus-building around new approaches that will work for partners and the agency alike.But it is essential that planners understand they need the public’s help to find the right answer, and they must be willing to reflect consensus in the plan itself—to share decision space. While some forests and districts have taken the plunge, there remain pockets of institutional resistance. Collaborative stakeholders will often ask for guardrails to ensure future actions stay within the zone of consent, and those guardrails can be at odds with agency preferences for greater discretion. Agency leaders must learn that setting limits during the planning process isn’t at odds with agency discretion but is instead an efficient way to exercise agency discretion. Ultimately, collaborative planning must offer stakeholders more than a request to trust its intentions. Trust requires accountability.

The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan is caught in the middle between what the agency is getting right and the lessons it has yet to learn. It’s optimistic but unfinished. Fortunately, there is still time to get it right. This plan is too important to give up on yet—both for the Nantahala-Pisgah and as a model for other forests that are trying to overcome histories of conflict.

This is also a make-or-break moment for the planning rule. Ten years in, there are no more excuses. The rule is not in transition any more. What the rule means here, now, is what it really means. Can the agency commit to work for better outcomes, build trust, and demonstrate its relevance to a public that is increasingly worried about the climate and biodiversity crises? Or will it teach the public that restoration is just another euphemism for business as usual? The next few months will tell.

Large landscape connectivity – could the Forest Service be a leader?

I watched a webinar provided by the Center for Large Landscape Conservation titled “Legal Protections for Large Landscape Conservation,” part of which focused on “Habitat Connectivity and the U. S. Forest Service.”  That segment can be seen here from 4:15 to 19:05.  The presentation goes over the elements of Forest Service planning that could be useful for habitat connectivity.  It includes a couple of examples of “innovations” from the Flathead and Carson/Santa Fe forest plan revisions, but concludes that few plan components that address connectivity are likely to be very effective.  It cites a familiar refrain that the agency is “unwilling to commit to specific direction,” and “lack of commitment and interest from line officers.”  However, the presenter observed that the movement of the Forest Service toward more centralized planning organizations might provide an opportunity to look at connectivity as a broader regional issue, and to develop regionally consistent approaches to planning for connectivity.

What if the Forest Service was actually interested in conserving the species that use its lands but require connectivity across other jurisdictions and ownerships (as it is required to do, “in the context of the broader landscape,” a phrase used seven times in the 2012 Planning Rule ), and what if the Forest Service played a leadership role in facilitating such cross-boundary connectivity by promoting large-landscape conservation strategies?

Maybe it would look something like what the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative has accomplished since it began promoting large-scale landscape conservation in 1993.  As Rob Chaney reports in the Missoulian, they have recently evaluated the effectiveness of their program in “Can a large-landscape conservation vision contribute to achieving biodiversity targets?”  They found that in the Y2Y region where landscape connectivity was actively promoted, more public lands were dedicated to protection, more private lands were protected, wildlife highway crossing structures proliferated, and occupied grizzly bear habitat (as a proxy for actual benefits to wildlife) expanded.

Come to think of it, wouldn’t that be a great assignment for the Biden Administration to give the Forest Service (both the National Forest System and State and Private Forestry divisions) to promote its 30 X 30 conservation agenda?

 

 

National Forest Planning News

As Matthew just posted, the Rio Grande National Forest has reached the penultimate phase of forest planning – the courtroom.  Here’s a few other updates that address some things we have discussed here.

Helena-Lewis and Clark decision

The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest has released its final revised forest plan after “a more than six year planning process.” This article provides highlights. In reference to travel planning, the forest supervisor indicated that since it had been completed in recent years, the Forest Service did not revisit those decisions in the forest plan (which doesn’t get the relationship quite right because travel plan designation decisions are not made in a forest plan, which I alluded to in a comment here).

Among the more controversial changes from the old forest plan are the replacement of elk hiding cover standards. According to the forest supervisor,

The standards became difficult and in some cases impossible to meet, Avey has said, due to changes on the ground such as high insect mortality in the forest.  The 2021 plan uses “security areas,” defined as blocks of habitat away from roads and guidelines, rather than standards, for tree cover. The changes provide the agency more flexibility as land use or ecology changes, he said. Wildlife advocates have pushed back for years on the shift from hiding cover standards to security areas, saying the standards are both scientifically proven and enforceable.

The Forest wants “flexibility” and the Montana Wildlife Federation wants the plan to be “enforceable.” “MWF is looking forward to addressing this glaring oversight with the Forest.”

Here is the forest supervisor’s take on the 2012 Planning Rule:

Drafting the plan fell under a 2012 Forest Service planning rule, which Avey believes made for a much improved finished product that takes a more holistic approach at the landscape. The rule directs the agency to define “desired conditions,” with subsequent decisions needing to move towards those goals.

“It’s much more powerful and easier to understand, I think, for the public and our staff,” he said. “It will also keep these plans fresher into the future as opposed to how dated our ’86 plans were.”

GMUG draft comments

The Outdoor Alliance has submitted comments on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Draft Revised Forest Plan that focus on recreation issues that we have discussed.  One is high levels of dispersed recreation use, for which the Alliance has proposed designation of specific areas for high use “recreation emphasis.”  Another is the effect (or not) of dispersed recreation on wildlife, stating that “the research on the effect of non-motorized, trail-based recreation on wildlife populations remains inconclusive,” so the Forests should “reconsider the limits on non-motorized, trail-based recreation within Wildlife Management Areas.”

Black Hills initiates revision

We’ve discussed (such as here) the new information about timber inventories on the Black Hills National Forest, and they have officially initiated the revision of the forest plan, which should produce a definitive answer based on the best available scientific information that will make everyone happy.  To summarize:

Just after the last update was introduced in 2006, the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic ravaged forest vegetation for over 10 years.  Jeff Tomac, Forest Supervisor of Black Hills National Forrest, discussed the impact this event had on the ecosystem.  “Timber sustainability on the Black Hills National Forest will be one of the assessments that we will be working through and a lot of interest top many people in and around the Black Hills,” he said.

It is interesting that, while many forest plans have never been revised (and are over 30 years old), a few are on their second revision (the Wayne is another).