2012 Planning Rule

From SE Agnet here.

WASHINGTON, June 5, 2012–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today named the members of an advisory committee charged with providing guidance and recommendations on the implementation of the new U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule.

“Members of this federal advisory committee will give unique perspectives on land management issues under the new planning rule, which provides stronger protections for forests, water, and wildlife while supporting the economic vitality of rural communities,” said Vilsack. “The committee’s input will be very important as we begin to implement the new rule and address critical management needs on our national forests and grasslands.”

More than 220 people applied to serve on the committee, making for a demanding selection process. The selected members represent a balanced range of public interests in the management of National Forest System lands, as well as a diversity of backgrounds, communities, and geographic locations. This group will be able provide the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service Chief with feedback on a range of issues important to implementation of the planning rule.

“The members of this committee collectively bring to the table a vast amount of knowledge, passion and interest in our national forests and grasslands,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “Forming this committee continues the commitment to public involvement and collaboration that has guided us throughout this landmark rulemaking process.”

While only 21 applicants could be selected for the committee, the Forest Service will continue to engage the public in a number of ways as the new rule is implemented. Opportunities will include participating in the early adopter forest plan revision efforts and commenting on the proposed planning directives when they are released for public comment. Meetings of the federal advisory committee are also open to the public.

The committee’s scope of work will include the ability to make recommendations on directives relating to the Planning Rule, effective monitoring and evaluation methods, and suggestions for increased collaboration efforts.

Federal advisory committee members are as follows:

Representing the public at-large

Howard Raymond Vaughan, Montgomery, Ala.
Vickie Roberts, Shelton Roberts Properties, Winona, Miss.
Representing American Indian Tribes

William Barquin, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Portland, Ore.
Representing commercial or recreational hunting and fishing

Daniel Dessecker, Ruffed Grouse Society, Rice Lake, Wis.
Representing conservation organizations or watershed associations

Christopher Topik, The Nature Conservancy, Vienna, Va.
Stephan Kandell, Trout Unlimited, Durango, Colo.
Susan Jane Brown, Blue Mountain Forest Partners, Portland, Ore.
Representing county or local elected officials

Joan May, San Miguel County Commissioner, Telluride, Colo.
Robert Cope, Lemhi County Commissioner, Salmon, Idaho
Representing developed outdoor or commercial recreation

Russell Ehnes, National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, Great Falls, Mont.
Representing dispersed recreation

Adam Cramer, Outdoor Alliance, Bethesda, Md.
Representing energy and mineral development

Greg Schaefer, Arch Coal, Inc., Gillette, Wyo.
Representing national, regional or local environmental organizations

Mike Anderson, The Wilderness Society, Seattle, Wash.
Peter Nelson, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.
Representing private landowners/grazing

James Magagna, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Rock Springs, Wyo.
Lorenzo Valdez, Youngsville Cattlemen Association, Fairview, N.M.
Representing the scientific community

Wally Covington, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.
Representing state-elected officials

Rodney Stokes, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, East Lansing, Mich.
Representing the timber industry

Tom Troxel, Intermountain Timber Association, Rapid City, S.D.
Pamela Motley, West Range Reclamation, LLC, Hotchkiss, Colorado
Representing youth

Candice Price, Urban American Outdoors, Kansas City, Mo.

Visit the agency’s planning rule website for more information about the committee, the new planning rule, and upcoming opportunities for public engagement.

In March, Vilsack announced USDA’s final Planning Rule for America’s 193 million-acre National Forest System that includes stronger protections for forests, water, and wildlife while supporting the economic vitality of rural communities. USDA and the Forest Service carefully considered more than a quarter million comments to develop the final rule, which emphasizes collaboration, sound science and protections for land, water and wildlife.

USDA works with state, local, and Tribal governments and private landowners to conserve and protect our nation’s natural resources – helping preserve our land and clean our air and water. President Obama launched the America’s Great Outdoors initiative in 2010 to foster a 21st century approach to conservation that is designed by and accomplished in partnership with the American people. During the past two years, USDA’s conservation agencies — the U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Farm Service Agency — have delivered technical assistance and implemented restoration practices on public and private lands. USDA is working to better target conservation investments by embracing locally driven conservation and entering partnerships that focus on large, landscape-scale conservation.

The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Recreational activities on our lands contribute $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world.

I ran across this on the Red Lodge Clearing House newsletter…

Here’s a link to his comments.

Here’s what he said about science:

Use of science in planning.36 CFR §219.3.The proposed rules required the Forest Service to“take into account the best available scientific information throughout the planning process…”
Many,including me,suggested that it was not enough merely to take the best science into account,as if it were only one factor to be considered. The Forest Service apparently agreed and the final rules require the agency to “use” the best available science.

It’s discouraging to me that anyone could believe that “scientific information” is somehow hardwired to any decision. That’s the linear model of science in policy that no one in the science policy science community sees as accurate. I have noticed that lawyers often seem to believe in the linear model. The problem will be when a judge decides what “using” the “best scientific information” means. It won’t be a requirement, I don’t think, that the judges familiarize themselves with the science policy literature before making a judgment on the Forest Service’s adherence to this new regulatory standard.

As I’ve said before, it seems contradictory to write a regulation that requires the use of ” the best current scientific information,” but not to use the best scientific information from the science policy or science and technology studies literature in development of the regulatory standard for the use of science.

Scientific information, in reality, is only one factor to be considered in making decisions, as stated by Sir Peter Gluckman, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand here (I became aware of this due to a post from Roger Pielke, Jr., here.

We live in a democracy, and governments have the responsibility to integrate dimensions beyond that covered in this paper into policy formation, including societal values, public opinion, affordability and diplomatic considerations while accommodating political processes.

Here’s a longer quote from the paper.

It is important to separate as far as possible the role of expert knowledge generation and evaluation from the role of those charged with policy formation. Equally, it is important to distinguish clearly between the application of scientific advice for policy formation (‘science for policy’) and the formation of policy for the operation of the Crown’s science and innovation system, including funding allocation (‘policy for science’). This paper is concerned with the former. A purely technocratic model of policy formation is not appropriate in that knowledge is not, and cannot be, the sole determinant of how policy is developed. We live in a democracy, and governments have the responsibility to integrate dimensions beyond that covered in this paper into policy formation, including societal values, public opinion, affordability and diplomatic considerations while accommodating political processes.

Science in its classic linear model can offer direct guidance on many matters, but increasingly the nature of science itself is changing and it has to address issues of growing complexity and uncertainty in an environment where there is a plurality of legitimate social perspectives. In such situations, the interface between science and policy formation becomes more complex. Further, many decisions must be made in the absence of quality information, and research findings on matters of complexity can still leave large areas of uncertainty. In spite of this uncertainty, governments still must act. Many policy decisions can have uncertain downstream effects and on-going evaluation is needed to gauge whether such policies and initiatives should be sustained or revised. But, irrespective of these limitations, policy formed without consideration of the most relevant knowledge available is far less likely to serve the nation well.

Note that Sir Peter also uses the term “consideration.”

The story is here..

here’s an excerpt

 

Another topic that’s raised questions from both the Center for Biological Diversity and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is the new emphasis on “maintaining viable populations of species of conservation concern.” These plants and animals aren’t necessarily on the endangered species list.

Environmentalists argue the new term fails to commit the agency to all-out protection of threatened or endangered species. Livestock producers say “maintaining viable populations” doesn’t show up anywhere else in federal law, so they have no idea what kinds of restrictions could be placed on their activity. And conservationists wonder what the agency will do about common species that still need attention, like elk or huckleberries.

“If you make the land more resilient, it should support more wildlife,” Sherman said. “Where that does not sufficiently work, with species at risk, we may need to create additional conditions to help recover or preserve species.”

That means asking users of federal lands to take action that could keep some animals off Endangered Species Act protection. For example, sage grouse populations are declining, but the bird is not yet listed as a threatened or endangered species. The Forest Service may ask grazing lease holders to move cattle away from sage grouse habitat to give the birds a boost.

All those decisions are supposed to be reached by teamwork among Forest Service officials and those who own, advocate, study and care for the land.

“When talking about contemporary, 21st century planning, collaboration is what you’re expected to do,” Sherman said. “We heard a lot about this from the public. We think this approach has widespread support.”

Here’s a piece by Holly Doremus on the new Planning Rule, on the Legal Planet blog here. I didn’t copy the links in the original to the piece below.

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

The Forest Service has now finalized the new planning rule it proposed a year ago. The final rule with preamble runs more than 240 pages. I haven’t yet plowed through it. The blog A New Century of Forest Planning is reporting reactions from a variety of sources. So far, there seem to be a lot of general statements of support, with the unsurprising proviso that the devil will be in the implementation details.

The thing that pops out at me about the new rule is the extent to which it brings to life what I view as the key dilemma of modern conservation policy: the tension between desires for management flexibility and demands for management accountability. Consider the most negative public commentary on the rule so far, and the one threat I’ve seen of litigation. It comes from the Center for Biological Diversity, which notes that:

The new rule significantly weakens longstanding protections for fish and wildlife species on national forests. While the Forest Service was previously required to ensure the viability of those populations, the new rule largely defers to local Forest Service officials.

What CBD is referring to is that the 1982 rule which this one replaces included the following provision:

Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.

That regulatory provision, popularly known as the “viability rule,” was the source of considerable successful litigation against the Forest Service. Groups like CBD correctly saw it as one of the few sources of strong accountability in a regime that gives the Forest Service a great deal of management discretion.

The new rule eliminates the viability rule, which the Forest Service now describes as inconsistent with “the most current science” and insensitive to “limitations on the Agency’s authority.” No wonder the Forest Service is worried about committing itself to maintaining the viability of particular species in every planning unit, given the realities of climate change.

The new planning rule focuses instead on ecological integrity and ecosystem diversity, which are admittedly fuzzy concepts. It also calls for additional species-specific conservation measures as needed to conserve ESA-listed and proposed species and other species of conservation concern. The regional forester is given discretion to decide which species are of conservation concern, and to determine that it is beyond Forest Service authority or the capability of the planning area to maintain a viable population of a species of conservation concern. That determination doesn’t mean the plan doesn’t have to deal with the species at all. It must still include provisions designed to “maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan area to contribute to maintaining a viable population of the species within its range.”

I’m sympathetic to CBD’s concerns about loss of oversight. The Forest Service has hardly been a reliable champion of the public interest on national forest lands in the past. It often seems to be highly sensitive to local economic interests, at the expense of long-term conservation.

But in this case, I’m not sure I could craft a better rule. It looks to me like the new language meets the relevant statutory requirement of NFMA, which mandates that the planning rule specify guidelines for plans “to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” I agree with the Forest Service that the old viability rule is too rigid for the current situation. The Service will need some flexibility to respond to a changing climate, and it is right that many species that live part of their life on national forests are also strongly affected by the actions of other landowners.

The key, of course, is to provide the Service with the discretion to respond to legitimate conservation challenges without allowing it to disregard conservation in favor of extractive industry interests. This is just one example of a far more general problem — if we need to adaptively manage lands and resources in order to be able to adjust to new conditions and new understanding, we have no choice but to give managers some discretion. The documented history of putting conservation well behind economic uses makes it difficult for environmentalists to feel comfortable about that, and its hard to create effective accountability and oversight measures for a necessarily discretionary regime.

At first glance, it looks to me like the new rule makes a credible stab at striking that difficult balance. It requires an explicit determination that species of conservation concern can’t be fully protected within the planning area, and the adoption of provisions to at least contribute to conservation. But I agree with CBD that there doesn’t seem to be as much limit on the ability of local forest officials to simply read species out of the list of concern, and it will surely be more difficult under the new rule to force reluctant forests to make robust conservation efforts. Still, I’d like to see a clearer explanation from CBD of what language they would like to have seen in place of what’s been adopted. If there isn’t a better option, than this one might have to do even though it’s clearly imperfect.

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

Opinions mixed on new U.S. Forest Service planning rule

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/opinions-mixed-on-new-u-s-forest-service-planning-rule/article_6e1bbe7e-77c5-11e1-a7ae-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1qJtz8ntH

The U.S. Forest Service’s recently released planning rule could turn the agency into a more efficient decisionmaker or create a department of perpetual planning, depending on who you listen to.

“We are ready to start a new era of planning that takes less time, costs less money and provides stronger protections for our lands and water,” Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in an email announcing the final version of the rule. “This new rule will bring 21st century thinking to a process that is sorely needed to protect and preserve our 193 million acres of amazing forests and grasslands.”

Critics have been equally expansive. Andy Stahl of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics predicted the process “would die of its own weight.”

“Anyone who thinks this rule will make forest plans quicker to develop is naive,” Stahl said. “It requires more process than its predecessor. To somehow think it’s going to be quicker and able to anticipate the future better — we’re lousy at being able to anticipate the future. The Forest Service has become a planning agency, while the only thing it does is fight fires, which now consumes half its budget. And the irony is the one thing the forest planning rules don’t address is fire management.”

In the Forest Service way of doing business, the planning rule tells individual forest supervisors how to construct their forest plans. Those plans in turn guide what can be done, for example, in the Lolo National Forest around Missoula.

*****

A recent example in the news involved a proposed ski area below Lolo Peak. The developer wanted permission to lease Forest Service land above his private property. But the snowy basin contained a resource management area protecting some wildlife habitat. The Lolo forest plan said such areas aren’t suitable for recreation development.

Forest Service Region 1 spokesman Brandan Schulze said the new rule would require more public collaboration on how recreation or protection decisions are made in a future Lolo forest plan. That’s not to say ski areas or habitat sanctuaries would get preference at the rule-making level, but that the priorities would get set in a different way.

“Some of those designations may change based on what happened since the last time the plan was done (in 1982),” Schulze said. “The rule would guide how a new collaborative process would go forward. It’s much more working up front to building the plan, as opposed to building the plan and getting the public involved after or toward the middle.”

The new rule also requires national forests to protect watersheds and water supplies on national forests; balance multiple uses including recreation, timber-cutting, wildlife management and range use; get more people involved in outdoor recreation; and document the use of “best available science” in decisionmaking.

The rule also changes the way people fight the Forest Service. In the past, opponents of forest projects appealed a supervisor’s decision through an internal review, and then took the case to court if the outcome wasn’t satisfactory.

The new objection format requires more up-front participation by people or groups interested in a project. Those participants have the opportunity to object to a project in its planning stage and argue for changes. But those outside the process have much smaller openings to challenge a Forest Service decision, either internally or in court.

The rule has won commendations from many environmental and conservation groups, including the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Defenders of Wildlife, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club.

It’s also garnered a thumbs down from the Center for Biological Diversity, whose public lands campaign director Taylor McKinnon said it made species protection voluntary instead of necessary.

“The Forest Service today completed what it’s been trying to do for 12 years, which is to weaken wildlife protections and public accountability on our national forests,” McKinnon said in a statement. “These forests, owned by the American people, are vitally important habitat for hundreds of species now vulnerable to climate change — yet the Forest Service is weakening, rather than strengthening, the safety net that keeps them alive.”

Retired Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, a Missoula resident, said the rule was a much-needed advancement from its 1982 predecessor.

“Back in the 1980s, the Forest Service was sawing 12 billion board-feet of timber,” Bosworth said. “Today what the Forest Service is doing is focused on restoration. The rule needs to reflect the things the service is doing today.”

“There’s no question that the processes we’ve had in place have gotten so burdensome, it’s very difficult doing work on the ground,” Bosworth added. “A lot of money gets spent on planning. Spending seven or eight years to develop a 15-year forest plan doesn’t make sense. I’m sure there’s people on all sides who say this isn’t exactly what they want, but we need to move on.”

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/opinions-mixed-on-new-u-s-forest-service-planning-rule/article_6e1bbe7e-77c5-11e1-a7ae-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1qJtJscBc

Note from Sharon:I appreciate that someone was quoted with a critique besides CBD. I’m with Dale, though, “I’m sure there’s people on all sides who say this isn’t exactly what they want, but we need to move on.”

Here’s the link.
Broad Support for Final Planning Rule

Final rule to restore the nation’s forests through science and collaboration
WASHINGTON, Mar. 26, 2012 – On Friday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s final Planning Rule for America’s 193 million-acre National Forest System that includes stronger protections for forests, water, and wildlife while supporting the economic vitality of rural communities.

USDA and the Forest Service carefully considered more than a quarter million comments received on the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement issued in February to develop today’s final rule, which emphasizes collaboration, sound science and protections for land, water and wildlife.

The final rule strengthens the role of public involvement and dialogue throughout the planning process. It also requires the use of the best available scientific information to inform decisions.

Praise for the rule and its collaborative development has been broad-based:

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, (D-NM), Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee
“The new forest planning rule is good news for our National Forest watersheds, local economies and outdoor recreational opportunities. I’m pleased that the rule provides for more public engagement and lower costs for developing strong, collaborative and science-based land management plans. After many years and many attempts to reform the National Forest planning process, I believe this is a balanced and realistic approach for moving forward.”

Dale Bosworth, former Chief of the U.S. Forest Service
“This is the most collaborative Forest Service rulemaking I’ve ever seen. The Forest Service worked for over two years with the American public to develop a planning rule that will protect our natural resources, promote sustainable recreation and safeguard our precious drinking water, all while allowing for timber harvest and encouraging restoration. This new planning rule promotes collaboration and will continue to engage the American people throughout all stages of planning. The Forest Service can now move forward to implement a new planning rule for the benefit of future generations.”

Laura McCarthy, Senior Policy Advisor, The Nature Conservancy
“The Forest Service should be complimented for producing a much needed Final Forest Planning Rule. Healthy forests support the well-being of our nation, yet more than half of the national forests are operating with out-of-date plans. We are glad the Forest Service has come out with a Final Rule that will allow new plans to be developed more efficiently. It is time to roll up our sleeves and work with the agency to update these plans.”

Michael Goergen, Executive Vice President and CEO, Society of American Foresters
“The Forest Service is revising national forest plans using regulations developed in 1982 — before the development of the McIntosh or Windows. Each attempt to modernize those regulations has been litigated, usually by both environmental and development groups. The quality of the environment cannot possibly be enhanced by using outdated rules. The new rules should be given a chance to work.”

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
“We are pleased that the Forest Service can now begin to implement this modernized final planning rule. Through working closely and cooperatively with the respective state fish and wildlife agency, implementation of the rule will ensure sustainability of fish and wildlife resources consistent with the plan area habitat. It will also ensure that the plan area will contribute to landscape level conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. We support the Forest Service moving quickly to effectively implement the rule to meet these conservation objectives.”

And others you saw in the previous post.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO, Defenders of Wildlife

“The Obama administration has made a very strong commitment to wildlife and land conservation with the release of its final forest-planning rule. The forest policy charts a new course to conserve and restore the health and integrity of these lands and waters, and now the hard work for implementing the rule begins today. Moving forward, it will be critical for the Forest Service to make this vision a reality as it issues implementation policies and begins writing forest plans. Defenders of Wildlife is committed to working with the Forest Service as it transforms its stewardship and wildlife conservation obligations to ensure that our nation’s forests, wildlife and waters are protected for generations to come.”

Mike Anderson, senior resource analyst, The Wilderness Society

The Forest Service has produced a visionary national forest planning rule based on principles of sound science. The new planning rule takes a big step forward to a more collaborative way of restoring and protecting the magnificent rivers and wildlife habitat of our national forests. The Forest Service should be congratulated for their inclusive public involvement and responsiveness to public feedback on the rule. The agency has gone beyond the norm by reaching out and listening to thousands of people who care deeply about the national forests. Continued public participation and inclusiveness will be critical in ensuring many parts of the new rule are implemented consistent with the rule’s vision.”

Michael Brune, executive director, Sierra Club

“The Sierra Club applauds USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and the Forest Service for taking action today to protect our forests and grasslands. The new standards represent a victory for communities and families in the Western region of the country, half of whom depend on national forests for clean and safe drinking water. The finalized standards also include criteria to restore and protect the watersheds and waterways that supply about one-fifth of our nation’s water – a move that’s good for our families, our health and our economy. Fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing and other outdoor recreational activities generate more than $700 billion for the economy each year and support thousands of jobs.”

Outdoor Alliance

“Outdoor Alliance and the broader human powered community is especially excited about the early adopter forests that are slated to immediately use the new rule on their forest plans. These forests, including the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest in Idaho, the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, and California’s Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests have a wealth of human powered outdoor recreational resources and will benefit from a modern planning approach.”

The Nature Conservancy

“The Forest Service should be complimented for producing a much needed Final Forest Planning Rule,” said Laura McCarthy, Senior Policy Advisor for The Nature Conservancy. “Healthy forests support the well-being of our nation, yet more than half of the national forests are operating with out-of-date plans. We are glad the Forest Service has come out with a Final Rule that will allow new plans to be developed more efficiently. It is time to roll up our sleeves and work with the agency to update these plans.”