Sharon just posted the news that the Custer-Gallatin revised forest plan has been released. Here’s a few other bits and pieces of planning news.
Custer-Gallatin forest plan revision. Here is a counterpoint: “We have worked hard, jumped through all their hoops, hoping for a reasonable and sensible plan that will facilitate long-term viability of the forest’s biodiversity. One can also hope to see a Unicorn.” (Is this one of those who “never had any intent of collaborating on anything?”)
Nantahala-Pisgah forest plan revision. I was pretty sure there was a recent post on this, but I couldn’t find it. Here’s a counterpoint from the Southern Environmental Law Center: “There is a lot of consensus on what the forest service says they should be doing and where it should be doing it and if they would operate within that social license, then they could complete that level of timber harvest without creating any problems. They basically declined doing that.”
Sierra and Sequoia forest plan revisions. The Forest Service released their periodic update on the status of these revisions: “We have reviewed the more than 7,000 responses we received during the 2019 comment period and have been updating the final revised forest plans and EIS in response to comments received and considering recent large wildfires in the plan area. Release of the final revised forest plans and final EIS for the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests is anticipated later this year.”
Ashley forest plan revision. Conservation Science Partners has completed a report for The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifies the relative ecological value of lands outside of protected areas based on a collection of key spatial data sets, including climate resiliency and carbon sequestration. The comment period for the draft plan and EIS closes February 17. (The resulting map is shown above.)
Blue Mountains forest plan revision. The restarted process for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests is moving again with the submission of new proposed “desired conditions” for the forests to the Blue Mountains Intergovernmental Council. The Forest Service formed the BIC, made up of county officials, tribal members and other stakeholders from the Blue Mountain region, after the agency’s proposed 2018 management plan revision fizzled in the face of intense public scrutiny. The Eastern Oregon Counties Association had listed eight main objections, including economics; access; management area designation; pace and scale of restoration; grazing; fire and salvage logging; coordination between agencies; and wildlife. Craig Trulock, Malheur National Forest supervisor, said he is not sure when the revision process would begin.
Wayne recreation amendment. The Wayne National Forest has adopted a Recreation Amendment to its Forest Plan which takes out direction from the Forest Plan and allows the Forest Supervisor to determine closure dates, allowing biking and horseback trail use to be extended based upon “weather and other factors.” (I’m in favor of this kind of seasonal criteria being forest plan guidelines due to different conditions year to year, but if there is no longer anything in the forest plan, the public won’t know what those factors are, or how they would be applied.)