I have spent the weekend dealing with leadership issues in one of my volunteer organizations…so have been slow to respond to blog comments. I’m sure I’ll have something thoughtful to say about this experience, when it’s over, if it ever is…
Anyway, here’s a question from Bob Berwyn, editor of Summit County Citizen’s Voice and photographer par excellence. The photo above is his work.
IMHO we ought to be able to explain to a member of the public who is not a planning wonk “what’s goin’ on”.
Here’s the classic Marvin Gaye version of “What’s Goin’ On” for those of you for whom this reference seems unfamiliar.
Almost at the same time that I read the Forest Service press releases about the new draft forest planning rule, and even before I had a chance to click on all the links, I also had a couple of press releases from conservation and wildlife advocacy groups in my inbox, decrying the new rule as less protective of wildlife.
Sometimes, in my haste to “scoop” the local print newspaper, I rush into posting stories, using such press releases, combined with some of my own contextual understanding of the issue, to try and create something interesting for readers. I was tempted to do the same late last week, but decided against it. Instead, I posted a straightforward story about the release, along with the YouTube video (here it is,SF) , and the links straight off the Forest Service planning rule page, along with letting readers know that this is the start of another important public comment period and that there will be a meeting in Lakewood.
I figure there will be plenty of time to follow up and take a closer look at some of the particulars of the plan.
I did have a long conversation/interview with Andy Stahl, someone I’ve learned to trust over the years, knowing that he speaks from the watchdog perspective. I asked him what was different in this rule, and he zoomed in on the same issue – wildlife viability.
What I gathered from the combination of the press releases and the interview is that the new rule requires the Forest Service to carefully consider impacts to species listed as threatened or endangered, and to species of concern, but that it leaves a lot of loopholes (my word, not his) with regard to other species, or “common” species, as was posted here.
According to Andy, the 1982 version had a simple requirement to maintain the viability of all species. The new rule instead, sets a very high threshold … and relieves the Forest Service of any affirmative need to show that protection.
Andy brought the spotted owl into play and said that, ever since the spotted owl decision, the Forest Service has been trying to chip away at the viability provision.
So Friday, I tried to call the national Forest Service HQ to get some perspective from a Forest Service biologist. Couldn’t reach anyone in time, so Sharon suggested posing the question here on NCFP.
What I want is a FS biologist to explain how this new rule would be applied on the ground to protect viability of all species. I’m assuming it’s in the monitoring and assessment process, but what do I know?
I know there’s a lot more to the rule than this, but that’s what the conservation groups and wildlife advocates seem to be focusing on — Why is that?
Second question: How exactly does this rule give local forest officials more control? Can someone explain how the old rule was more centralized in Washington, D.C., as written in the Washington Post story?
Any feedback to help me explain all this my readers would be appreciated!
OK. I am going to try to take a stab at this, knowing full well that the answer will be honed and improved through contributions from other bloggers.
Under the 1982 Rule there is a viability requirement for ALL vertebrate species, including that they should be well distributed. This means the FS can be taken to court if it isn’t protecting them all, or one that people are interested in. Other land management agencies, such as BLM, don’t have this requirement for species not protected through ESA.
Here is the actual text in the Proposed Rule:
§ 219.9 Diversity of plant and animal communities.
Within Forest Service authority and
consistent with the inherent capability
of the plan area, the plan must include
plan components to maintain the
diversity of plant and animal
communities, as follows:
(a) Ecosystem Diversity. The plan
must include plan components to
maintain or restore the structure,
function, composition, and connectivity
of healthy and resilient terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in
the plan area, consistent with § 219.8(a),
to maintain the diversity of native
species.
(b) Species Conservation. The plan
components must provide for the
maintenance or restoration of ecological
conditions in the plan area to:
(1) Contribute to the recovery of
threatened and endangered species;
(2) Conserve candidate species; and
(3) Maintain viable populations of
species of conservation concern within
the plan area. Where it is beyond the
authority of the Forest Service or the
inherent capability of the plan area to
do so, the plan components must
provide for the maintenance or
restoration of ecological conditions to
contribute to the extent practicable to
maintaining a viable population of a
species within its range. When
developing such plan components, the
responsible official shall coordinate to
the extent practicable with other
Federal, State, tribal, and private land
managers having management authority
over lands where the population exists.
(c) Diversity of tree and other plant
species. The plan must include plan
components to preserve, where
appropriate, and to the degree
practicable, the diversity of native tree
and other native plant species similar to
that existing in the plan area, as
required by NFMA (16 U.S.C.)
It seems like some groups are concerned that there might be a loss of legal hooks for protection of species that are not endangered or threatened and not selected by forest supervisors as “species of conservation concern.”
Of course, practically speaking, a forest could never “ensure viability of all vertebrate species,” especially under conditions of climate change, even if forests were managed without people or projects allowed. But just reading the ecosystem diversity provision:
Ecosystem Diversity. The plan
must include plan components to
maintain or restore the structure,
function, composition, and connectivity
of healthy and resilient terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in
the plan area, consistent with § 219.8(a),
to maintain the diversity of native
species.
Aren’t species part of the “composition” of ecosystems? So added with the composition and structure requirements, isn’t there more protection for ecosystems, including the species component, than under the 1982? Maybe I am missing something.
Thanks Sharon, I forgot about the “legal hooks” part — that helps answer part of my question.