Here’s a new report from Defenders of Wildlife providing a checklist for evaluating the impending 2011 forest planning rule: Defenders’ Planning Checklist in PDF.
This is sure to be the first of several upcoming evaluations and critiques, and we’ll post those here as well.
I don’t see any big surprises here. The group is obviously focused on a mandatory species viability standard, but it also calls for an “external factors” exception to the standard when necessary, such as when activities on private land threaten a species on an adjacent national forest. This is something that Sharon has written about on the blog. Also included in this section is a call for a “non-discretionary monitoring program to ensure that habitat is supporting viable populations.”
Lots more of course. Including a section, close to my heart, calling for a strong framework of national standards, guidelines, and objectives.
And here’s the report on the Defenders’ blog: http://experts.defendersblog.org/2011/02/obama%E2%80%99s-forest-rule-a-checklist-for-success-from-defenders-of-wildlife/
thanks, Martin.. this came at a fortuitous time. I think things are heating up in Planning Rule World.
I hope there is a way to view all of the changes and recommendations from other agencies like the DOJ, and other “Party Offichniks”. It’s almost like those folks get an unlimited “comment period”, with access to all the official comments. Of course, that was also the case during the last administration, as well.
“Open and transparent”, please!! *smirks*
If you mean that the Administration, as in the USDA (Deputy Sec. for NRE) or the White House (OMB, CEQ) gets to take as long as it wants to review the rule and require changes, of course it does. That is an Executive Branch prerogative. The frustrating part for an agency such as the Forest Service is the extent that outside forces (Industry or Greens, depending on administration or maybe all perspectives in some sort of utopia) has direct access at those upper levels and potential “veto” authority over parts of a rule.
A constituent group like Defenders or AF&PA wants to see its agenda implemented at the highest levels. A law is best, next best is regulation. That way, they only have to fight a battle once. Conversely, an agency like the FS usually wants maximum flexibility.
If an agency is smart about this process, it has done its homework about what will be acceptable before it delivers a draft rule to the Administration for approval. If not, a draft rule can simply vanish into the void. Somewhere in the space-time continuum there is a draft rule with Jack Ward Thomas’es signature on it that disappeared into the void forever.
Ahh.. but that is precisely why a FACA committee to give recommendations on a rule is so powerful. A FACA committee comes out with recommendations, then it becomes clear that someone is going to need to explain to the FACA committee why those were unacceptable to the Higher Alphabetical Powers (OMB, CEQ, etc.). And with either party in power, some of the members of the FACA committee would have buddies in high places to ask or find out what is going on, and to lobby directly behind the scenes to keep to the recommendations.
The longer I am involved in this business, the more I think a FACA committee is the best vaccine against special interest end-runs on either side. Now, I would make multiple improvements in the running of FACA committees but that is another post…
PS Jim, IMHO AF&PA is so 20th century when it comes to federal lands policy. Few of the larger members get a substantial chunk of supply from federal lands. Here’s their policy page.. it’s hard to find anything about federal lands there.
Groups who are looking for high-powered enemies worthy of attention and fund-raising efforts are going to have to find another “other side.” It’s hard to label the natural gas industry as the “bad guys” because the climate people tell us natural gas is better than coal. So perhaps we have “met the enemy and it is us” (as Pogo said) either recreationists (OHVs only or all?) or people who live near forests and would like fuelbreaks around their communities. Or water providers or ski areas?
In my office, when people say “industry” they could mean any of the above, including tourism.
In the checklist and press release, there is no mention of catastrophioc wildfires, overstocking, species composition and accelerated erosion as problems in National Forests. The idea that dead forests are suitable as “wildlife corridors” is pure fantasy. A living forest supports endangered species. A dead forest excludes many endangered species. Dead forests are also unsuitable as Wilderness Areas. Since the claims of climate change say that “forests are dying from man-made climaye change”, such forests have become “trammelled” by man, and don’t meet the strict Wilderness Act guidelines. You cannot have it both ways. Either it is suitable and pristine, or it is unsuitable and “trammelled”.
I’m confused. Regardless, that is not what the word “trammeled” means. This is important actually. Trammeled is not about pure, pristine, or “untrampled” places. It is about how to manage a wilderness area once brought into the system–for landscapes to be self-willed, unrestricted, uncontrolled, etc. So for the record, this is a misuse of the term. And I’ve made it my life mission to correct its misuse. But I’m not sure we should get into this discussion here.
Fotoware,
I preface this with the caveat that I’m not a big fan of new Wilderness designations and don’t think some of the past designations were appropriate or necessary. I think most of the good stuff has already been designated and adding poor quality tracts just waters-down the designation. I do think that some areas need further protections, perhaps through customized Congressional designations, however.
OK, can you help me understand what point you are trying to make?
First, I don’t see Defenders asking for more Wilderness. They are concerned about wildlife and watersheds and habitats. They are usually in favor of management actions which protect these things and a Wilderness designation can make that difficult if not impossible. Don’t lump them with The Wilderness Society.
Second, by “dead forest” do you mean one with dead overstory trees? Is the dead forest one that is undergoing a type conversion to grassland or brush following a disturbance or is it regenerating? What do you think Defenders means when they use the term?
Whatever it means, it doesn’t make it unsuitable for Wilderness. Wilderness can be dead, dying, healthy, trees, no trees, full of invasive exotics, whatever, as long as it’s “wild”. It doesn’t have to be pristine and untrammeled doesn’t mean that it’s never been touched by the hand of Man.
You may have a point that if forests are dying from climate change then ecosystems are not operating without Man’s influence and are therefore currently “trammeled.” Considering the extent that ecosystems were influenced by American Indians long before European settlement, and the current global nature of mercury deposition, what hasn’t been trammeled at some point? Maybe the key point in the Act is that “. . .man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
Locking out management from protecting and improving ESA habitat is clearly against the ESA, and probably, against some of the many ESA management plans, mandated by the ESA. Enacting Wilderness Designations within currently at-risk ESA habitats, like spotted owls, goshawks and pine martens, will only result in wildfires and habitat loss, which is exactly why they are continued to be listed. Old-growth-like habitat cannot be easily replaced and wildfires are chewing it up very rapidly.
Tell this lowly college drop-out why this conundrum exists! Is your conscience at rest when ESA habitat burns “naturally”? The “New Vision” of our “New Forests” is pretty hellish, from my heathen point of view.
Martin,
Hope I didn’t add to the confusion. Perhaps the part of the definition from the act that is pertinent here is (c) (1)” generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”
One could argue that if climate change is human-caused and forests are dying because of it, then the imprint of man’s work is very noticeable. It might be an interesting discussion, but doesn’t seem to have much to do with that Defenders is talking about.
Does anyone REALLY believe that a “mandatory species viability standard” can be agreed upon, either in a scientific arena, or in a court of law?!? Scientifically, it seems to me that such an effort might be just trying to “shoehorn” a species to fit the habitat. The circular logic says that the habitat is marginal, the habitat is at risk, so the habitat must be preserved, locking out any chance for managed improvement or protection.
Where is the Precautionary Principle?!? Who really enforces the ESA? I don’t wish for the management of our National Forests to be turned over to “judgement calls” about “species viability”. Sure, it’s an issue but, it’s a very fuzzy one, scientifically and legally.
Yes viability is a fuzzy issue and arguably perhaps the most pivotal and thorny one in the rule. It will be difficult, but to get a rule implemented we will have to agree on some sort of standard. I’m pretty sure that we can’t “ensure” viability but I’m also sure that just “providing for” won’t be enough of a standard.
The statement that marginal or at risk habitat must be preserved and therefore cannot be improved or protected is not logical. Often management is very much required to redeem our NFMA mandate to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and our ESA duty to protect and recover listed species. I don’t see any conflict with the Precautionary Principle there.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are charged with enforcing the ESA. All Federal agencies are charged with complying with its provisions, including the oft-overlooked responsibility to recover listed species, not just avoid harm.
It case you haven’t been paying attention, the management of the National Forests was “turned over to judgment calls about species viability” a long time ago.
Has Gore’s “judgement call” done any good in the PNW (Owls are fewer and mills are closed)?!? It is EXTREMELY important what we choose to make law, policy or rule. Locking in rules based on probably faulty science has bitten us in the butt, before. The “mortality prevention and recovery” issue is just as important as species viability. Without a forest, a spotted owl or a goshawk cannot survive. They survive QUITE well in managed forests.
There are few “standards” for individual species, and those “standards” are open to a multitude of questions. How many more “species of concern” will be demanded for inclusion into the list of sacred species? How many of those have actual protocols for survey that won’t hinder bog down forest management? Would it help to say that the goal of big timber Forests is to simply grow big trees?
Much of America’s ESA habitat is second-growth forest. Many of those horrible old forest practices didn’t kill off those species. Today’s modern forest practices are very significantly less impactful than in the past. Today’s foresters are being punished for what now-dead foresters did in the last millenium. It’s no wonder that our forests are in such bad shape, right now.
The Precautionary Principle MUST be applied to the idea of “passive restoration”, an oxymoron if I ever saw one. The Agengy’s response to ESA habitat is always the same. Lock it up. Once you find a nest, that “circle” now becomes de facto wilderness, even when that circle dies.
And, where is the EPA in regulating wildfire emissions, and ESA habitat losses, due to “fire management”. Shouldn’t firecrews be DEFENDING ESA habitat? We always hear that “only 4% of ancient forest still exists” but, it’s just fine and dandy if it burns. Especially if it was started by lightning. However, fire “managers” don’t have to follow NEPA, doesn’t have to deal with the public, and have few worries about escaped “management” fires.
Defenders non-mention of forest mortality issues taints their response with preservationism. The Precautionary Principle must be applied to “letting nature take its course”, to display those impacts for all to see.
Unfortunately barred owls survive even better in managed forests and tend to out-compete spotted owls. This is likely to be one big reason for the spotted owl’s decline. And yes, the Northwest Forest Plan needs to be updated and does not do a good job of allowing for differences in ecotypes within the purview of the plan.
I prefer standards for ecosystems that provide habitats for an array of species over standards for individual species except when certain species also need extra protection (coarse filter/ fine filter approach).
A lot of the inventory and monitoring for animal species has been a waste of time and money and hasn’t helped us much with management decisions. We need to do better under the new rule. I’ll admit to being a big proponent of the management indicator concept in the past but will admit now that it generally doesn’t work very well. (Hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time!)
Past “management” of forests in the South almost succeeded in wiping out the red-cockaded woodpecker. Today’s forest management in the South as practiced by foresters, biologists, and fire managers is bringing it back. Those foresters are no longer being punished for what their predecessors did, but they didn’t regain the Public’s trust overnight. Whether or not it’s wrong for modern-day foresters to be punished for sins of the past is beside the point. I may not like it, but so what? I’d rather focus on what it will take to be successful in restoring and maintaining healthy forest ecosystems.
I think that one goal of all of our national forests (the ones with trees anyway) should be to “grow big trees” but it’s a little more complicated than that, isn’t it?
Thank goodness the EPA doesn’t try to regulate wildfire emissions (at least yet) or enforce the ESA (not their job). Land managers need to be working right now with the EPA on ways to ensure that prescribed fire (including the use of wildfire) will continue to be available as a management tool that currently has the greatest impact on North American ecosystems– far greater than whatever timber stand management the FS currently does) Firecrews pretty much defend whatever they are told to. Sometimes the best defense is letting something burn– as long as its producing desired future conditions. Sometimes they get it wrong. Fire managers do have to follow NEPA, they just don’t have to do some sort of project analysis for each individual use of managed fire. In my view, the importance of allowing fire to play it’s ecological role in most ecosystems far outweighs the risks from fires that sometimes don’t go as planned. The next generation of forest plans will need to fully recognize and consider the role of disturbances such as fire in shaping ecosystems.
I agree that “letting nature take its course” has consequences that shuold be analyzed and debated. Sometimes doing nothing (“passive restoration”) is the best course, sometimes not.