I’ve been looking at the second final forest plan and EIS prepared under the 2012 Planning Rule, the Flathead. I want to commend them for some of the things they’ve done.
They have done a very good job of describing desired conditions for many vegetation characteristics based on their natural range of variation. I can tell you that this is the kind of “specific” desired conditions the drafters of the Planning Rule had in mind for providing ecological integrity. They also conducted an analysis of how vegetation conditions would change over time as a result of the plan, while factoring in expected fire regimes, and they were able to use this for some of their analysis of effects on viability of wildlife species that are closely tied to vegetation. I pretty much only looked at the wildlife parts of the EIS, but I thought the terrestrial part was well organized, and included some thoughtful discussion of what plan components actually do. One of my interests is habitat connectivity, and they have given it a more serious look than most, including actually considering and identifying specific areas to be managed for connectivity.
I was looking for problems related to at-risk species, and there are some. Regarding fire, even though they don’t call the wildland-urban interface a “management area,” it is one because a lot of plan components apply differently there.
I’ve also seen how big of a job it is to review and understand something this massive within 60 days, even with only a limited focus – and I’m someone with probably as much experience at this as anyone. It helped to have followed this process off and on from the beginning, but I have some sympathy for organizations trying to promote changes at this point in the process. (There’s much more time to prepare for forest plan litigation.)
Next up? The Inyo is on track for “this spring.”
Good to hear that something effective is resulting from the planning process.
I overlooked the El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico. They were expected to issue the Record of Decision for their revised plan in September, but the national forest has been closed since September 5 due to hurricane damage, and finishing the plan was probably not a priority. This may also be an extreme case of new information that comes up before a final decision is made requiring new analysis before a decision. Then there is the NFMA requirement to revise the plan (again) whenever “conditions in a unit have significantly changed.” Really unfortunate for the Forest (but pretty trivial in the bigger picture).
I can see how a person might think that Puerto Rico’s conditions have changed based on damage from Hurricane Maria, but have they really? In ecological time, perhaps this part of the overall cycle. I guess I can assess better when I see the vegetation growing back.
Not that public comments on Forest Plan Revisions really matter or anything, but….
So Matt, are yo saying that public comment doesn’t matter? Maybe we should do away with it then?
So, smokey, I was being sarcastic. And yes, sometimes it seems as if public comments directed at the U.S. Forest Service don’t matter. Sometimes it seems like voting doesn’t matter either. As I resident of Montana I certainly don’t feel as if I have a vote for President, for example. Of course, it’s likely that a conservative citizen in California also feels as if they don’t have a vote for President either.
P.S. Do you have anything to say about the Flathead Forest Plan? Or the information in the press release?
http://missoulanews.com/news/flathead-s-new-forest-plan-stokes-conservationists-concerns/article_54819cdc-1755-11e8-9a10-8b4b128293a4.html
Some view this as setting the bar for future planning:
“WildEarth spokesperson Marla Fox says provisions addressing the Flathead’s infrastructure constitute a “weakening” of habitat protections compared to the current plan. She finds that especially troubling, since this is one of the first forest plan revisions in the country since the Forest Service adopted new planning rules in 2012, placing stronger emphasis on climate change and the recovery of threatened and endangered species. “With our changing climate and everything that goes with that — species viability, connectivity with increased development — it’s a struggle,” Fox says. “This is kind of setting the stage for future forest plans, and that’s why it’s such a big deal.””