2012 Planning Rule

Getting Revisions Done: Stay Tuned for New Forest Service Planning Implementation Model

by
Current plan revision schedule.  You can click on this and get higher resolution. I recently heard that the Pisgah-Nantahala (which started in 2012 with assessing) is about to release its draft.

Sure enough, the FS doesn’t actually have a “can’t do” attitude as it appeared from my read of the recent hearing. From chatting further with Chris French, it turns out that they are well down the road with an innovative approach to deal with LMP revisions, and to actually get them back on schedule (!).

Sure enough, (this will not surprise anyone) the 2012 Rule is difficult and complex to do, and the FS decentralized approach makes for inconsistencies.  We’ve observed those here at TSW. Despite the unduly optimistic Q&As from the 2012 Rule:

Under the 2012 planning rule the agency should be able to revise more plans with the same amount of money. The 2012 planning rule should reduce the amount of time (3-4 vs. 5-7 years) and the amount of money ($3-4 vs. $5-7 million) that it takes to revise individual forest and grassland land management plans, as compared to the current 1982 procedures.

That’s not the way it’s worked out. Using simple logic, if you do more analysis and involve people more, it takes more time and costs more money.  This seemed obvious to everyone at the time, apparently everyone but the people who did the PR for the Rule. So the reality has been more like 7-8 years. And the FS folks noticed that this was a problem, especially since the desired target of NFMA is a plan that is revised every 15 years. It makes sense for them to try something different, because next year will be 10 years since the 2012 Rule was published, and it is a reasonable time to assess how it has been working and to do some adaptive management.

So to that end, the FS is in the process of figuring out the details of a new way to approach forest planning. It’s a hybrid model, with decision authority and stakeholder involvement remaining at the forest level, while analysis and other technical issues are provided in geographic teams that handle multiple revisions. There will also be some national teams or other efforts to ensure consistency. The idea is to be able to get on a national planning rotation of 10-15 years with an expected timeframe of 3-4 years per plan.

Chris also made clear that this hybrid model was developed prior to the current discussions on the Reconciliation bill, which as you may remember calls for (in October 28 version):

$350,000,000 for National Forest System land management planning and monitoring, prioritized on the assessment of watershed, ecological, and carbon conditions on National Forest System land and the revision and amendment of older land management plans that present opportunities to protect, maintain, restore, and monitor ecological integrity, ecological conditions for at-risk species, and carbon storage.

Chris noted that that this funding would indeed be helpful in getting plans done.

So stay tuned, and more information will be forthcoming on the details of the model when the Forest Service has the complete package finalized.

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

My view: this approach sounds eminently sensible to me. After all, decentralization is a philosophy, not a commandment. Some regions do some versions of this already, as I understand.

It also reminds me of the BLM RMP approach in Nevada that we looked at here and their rationales. If you do something once every twenty to thirty years, it’s unlikely you will get very good at it compared to those who do it all the time. And in the case of the 2012 Rule, if you’ve never done it, you’re probably not as good at using it as someone who has.

As a wonk, I would have preferred a more formal open process with public involvement in “what is working and what isn’t” after ten years of experience, including the views of stakeholders, scientists, and so on, who actually have been involved in the guts of a revision process. It would include the possibility of tweaks to the Rule itself. Like an LMP, doing a new rule is opening Pandora’s box, whereas specific amendments can be very helpful based on the concept of a “need for change.”

Side note: If the FS chose to prioritize fire amendments instead of revisions (OK, which seems unlikely, still..), the bill language does include “amendment of older LMPs” which almost all are, the FS would have to argue they are protecting eco integrity, conditions for at-risk species and carbon storage. And fire amendments (managed wildfires, prescribed burning, POD delineation and analysis of specific treatments) would do that, IMHO.

You Can’t Pull a Fire Engine with a Dead Horse: Are Plan Revisions a Roadblock to Dealing With Fire Planning? AND A Bipartisan Window to Revise NFMA?

by

Reading this article by Marc Heller of E&E News on Chris French’s testimony (well worthy reading in its entirety), I had flashbacks to many previous discussions, including my all-time favorite The Smokey Wire post.. Andy Stahl’s KISS Rule, from 2009.

I’d like to express two caveats here.  One is that I’m assuming Marc got it right; and that if I watched the hearing, I would get the same impression. As much as I like this stuff, I do not want to watch the whole thing, so if someone would like to do that, I encourage you to do so and report back.  The other is that French’s testimony has been cleared by the Administration (as is the standard process), so that determines the FS position. It would not be unduly political to suggest that what I might call “plan-olatry” derives more from external groups than inside the Forest Service.

Basically the “can-do” Forest Service was saying that “we can’t”, at least,  they can’t without plan revisions and there’s no way to hurry them up. I’ve never really heard the FS have a can’t do attitude, no matter how strange or difficult the request from the powers that be.

 

Of the 154 land management plans the Forest Service follows nationally, more than half are at least 15 years old, French said in response to questions from committee Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

And while the Forest Service has updated 35 plans and is in the process of updating 19 more, it doesn’t have enough staff or money to catch up on the others, even with the help of contractors, French said.

“We just can’t pay for those positions anymore,” French said, adding that the Forest Service has recently seen a decline of about 40 percent in natural resources professionals who work on the management plans.

The delay in forest plans has on-the-ground implications for wildfire and other issues, as the documents shape policies on forest thinning, prescribed fire, timber harvests and other measures that have fire implications, especially in the fire-prone West.

In an era of wildfires and other challenges driven in part by climate change, land management plans may not embrace new solutions, although they can be amended from time to time. French said a full land management plan update typically takes from six to eight years.

Manchin, appearing frustrated at the logjam, asked French whether the agency could seek help from contractors — which the deputy chief said it already does — and whether the Senate could do more to help.

“Everybody, Democrat and Republican, is all for this, so all we need is your-all’s cooperation,” Manchin said.

Congress has appropriated $540 million to the Forest Service for land management plans in the past three years, Manchin said. But much of that money goes to efforts like environmental reviews, leaving just $40 million to $50 million for actual land management planning, French said.

To address the backlog, French said, the agency is taking a new approach — beginning this week — that’s based on regional, rather than forest-by-forest, analysis.

My bold.  I can see why the regional approach is being considered, but it’s one more step away from the residents and stakeholders on the ground. And I can imagine that some forests might get shorter shrift than others (imagine east side versus west side in Oregon, say.) Are we repeating the errors of the past? And if it’s not really “forest” planning, what is it?

Earlier I posted this “Fire Planning Amendments with EISs” approach that would seem to satisfy most ENGO’s. So the FS could do what needs to be done fire planning wise, and wait for a better solution to the revision problem, by doing a stand-down on plan revisions for now.

After all, it’s an emergency, and a unique window in which the FS has the bipartisan attention of Congress. The Admin could develop a FACA committee, with public comment, built on “do plans do anything useful to anyone?” (not “how to tweak the 2012 Rule?”) and starting there on revisions to NFMA. The Biden Administration has at least three years to do it and make it through the window.

Talk about an opportunity for the Administration to leave the government in a better place than they found it, and to do something with bipartisan support!

The election is in 2024 and in 2026 NFMA will be 50 years old. It’s not the latest planning science…plus conditions have also changed greatly. Perhaps it’s time to put it out to pasture.

The whole article is here.

Forest Management Direction for Large Diameter Trees in Eastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington

by

One of the many things that went into the Trump dump the last couple of weeks was the amendment of the Forest Service Eastside Screens old growth protection standard:  “Forest Management Direction for Large Diameter Trees in Eastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington.”    We discussed that at length here.  The Forest Service documentation for the amendment is here. The standard prohibiting harvest of trees >21” dbh has been replaced by this guideline (“LOS” is late and old structure, and it refers to “multi-stratum with large trees” and “single-stratum with large trees”):

Outside of LOS, many types of timber sale activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance a diverse array of LOS conditions in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following plan components: Managers should retain and generally emphasize recruitment of old trees and large trees, including clumps of old trees. Management activities should first prioritize old trees for retention and recruitment. If there are not enough old trees to develop LOS conditions, large trees should be retained, favoring fire tolerant species where appropriate. Old trees are defined as having external morphological characteristics that suggest an age ≥ 150 years. Large trees are defined as grand fir or white fir ≥ 30 inches dbh or trees of any other species ≥ 21 inches dbh. Old and large trees will be identified through best available science. Management activities should consider appropriate species composition for biophysical environment, topographical position, stand density, historical diameter distributions, and Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens 5 spatial arrangements within stands and across the landscape in order to develop stands that are resistant and resilient to disturbance.

The proper way to read a guideline is that its purpose is a standard: “Managers must maintain and/or enhance a diverse array of LOS conditions in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible.”  It’s not clear to me how you maintain LOS “outside of LOS,” so maybe only “enhance” is applicable, but even that term assumes what you are enhancing is already there to a degree.  This is also weakened by the qualifier “as much as possible.”  This could be interpreted to allow timber harvest even if enhancing LOS conditions is not possible.

The rest of the boldface language should be interpreted as actions that would always be allowed because they would always promote the LOS purpose.  This means that a decision to NOT retain all old and large trees could only be made if it is demonstrated that LOS is enhanced.  “Generally emphasize” allows probably unlimited discretion regarding recruitment.  A decision to NOT prioritize old trees (i.e. to log any old tree before logging large trees) could also only be made if it is demonstrated that LOS is enhanced.  This could be reasonably effective, but it puts a significant burden on project analysis and documentation to deviate from the terms of the guideline.  This is as it should be.  The last part of the guideline lists things that “should be considered,” which shouldn’t be given much weight.

There are also changes in standards and guidelines for snags, green tree replacement and down logs.

The last part of the “decision” is to adopt an “Adaptive Management Strategy.”  This strategy proposes monitoring and thresholds intended to trigger additional restrictions on large tree removal:

  1. If large trees are not increasing in number with appropriate composition, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across the whole analysis area or by national forest or potential vegetation zone.

  2. If effectiveness monitoring does not occur, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across all six national forests.

However, under the Planning Rule, these are not plan components and are not mandatory.  While there are “requirements” for regional forester review every five years, this is not a plan component either.  Since none of this “strategy” is enforceable it is of much less benefit than if it had been included as plan components like standards.

(For those interested in how the “natural range of variation” (NRV) is used in forest planning, there is a desired condition for the amounts of LOS in different habitat groups and it is based on NRV.  These new amendments leave in place the desired conditions for LOS previously determined in accordance with the original amendments in 1995.   An appendix in the decision notice includes a “Table 3” that is “only an example” of NRV because, “The number and kind of biophysical environments and the historic and current distribution of structural conditions vary by landscape.”  In order to fully understand the effects of this amendment on a particular landscape, we would need to see the definitions of LOS and actual desired conditions for LOS incorporated into a plan for that landscape.  I didn’t find them in or see them referred to in the amendment documentation, I suppose because they are not changing).

 

Good news for wildlife on two national forests

by

Here are two different kinds of success stories about restoring wildlife species that have been missing from national forests.

 

 

Grizzly bears – Lolo National Forest.

Current efforts on the Lolo National Forest demonstrate one way that forest plans can improve conditions for at-risk species; in this case the plan is contributing to conservation of the federally threatened grizzly bear. Grizzly bears have been sighted in recent years in this part of the Forest, but none are females or considered to be residents.

In 2011, the forest plan was amended to include what is commonly referred to as the Access Amendment (similar amendments also applied to the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle national forests, prior to the revision of their forest plans).  The amendment established “standards” for motorized road and trail density in grizzly bear management units (BMUs, there is one on the Lolo).  In many cases, the current conditions did not meet these standards, so in the terminology of the 2012 Planning Rule, these would be desired conditions or objectives to be achieved.  In addition, their achievement was assumed in the biological opinion on the effects of the forest plan on grizzly bears prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and failure to achieve them would likely trigger the need to reinitiate consultation on the forest plan (which had happened on the Flathead National Forest).  So there is a little added incentive, but here is what they are doing now.

The Forest has completed the “BMU 22 Compliance Environmental Assessment.”  In it they have proposed to formally close some roads that are effectively closed already and 21 trail miles currently open to motorized use.  In response to public comments, they are also considering an alternative that would close fewer trails, and instead close some roads currently open to motorized use.  In addition to other closures included with some prior vegetation management projects both alternatives “would bring the Forest into compliance with the Forest Plan motorized access management standards for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zone.”

Brown-headed nuthatch – Mark Twain National Forest

The nuthatch is not at-risk range-wide, but they have not been found in Missouri for at least a century.  The species requires shortleaf pine and oak woodland forests, which have been greatly reduced from historic levels.  The loss of these forests has prompted an ecosystem restoration effort across Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma (notably using the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program).  Restoration of such forests is a desired outcome of the Mark Twain forest plan.  Curiously, there is no mention of the brown-headed nuthatch in the 2005 forest plan, although it does address other species using the same habitat:

Objective 1.4a Improve open woodland conditions on at least 10,500 acres to provide habitat for summer tanager, northern bobwhite, Bachman’s sparrow, and eastern red bat.

The EIS states that the nuthatch is a Management Indicator Species for forest plan monitoring, but that doesn’t seem to be in the plan itself.  Of course, a species that is absent from a national forest would not make a good MIS.  In any case, it looks like there was no interest by the Mark Twain in reestablishing a species that was not present on the forest under that rules applicable to forest planning in 2005.

However, Forest Service, state and university researchers came to the rescue of the species, determining that sufficient woodlands now exist in Missouri to support a population of Brown-headed Nuthatches, that populations in Arkansas were robust enough to supply birds to Missouri, but that nuthatches are not likely to make the return on their own because of the distance and habitat fragmentation.  The Mark Twain National Forest site was chosen for the release of 100 birds because it is the largest area of open pine woodlands in the state.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the Forest Service would probably argue that this species is not “known to occur” in the plan area, so the requirement to provide ecological conditions for it (as a species of conservation concern) would not apply.  However, the separate requirement for ecological integrity requires “species composition and diversity” to occur within the natural range of variation.  That should make the Forest Service more proactive in reestablishing species that historically occurred there.  (The forest plan also omits the listed red-cockaded woodpecker, which also uses these habitats, is also absent, but must be conserved and recovered.)

(For a look at how the natural range of variation might work under the 2012 Planning Rule see Table A-2, “Desired conditions for natural community types.”)

Modernizing Planning Discussion in R-6/R-5 Bioregional Assessment: Which Would You Pick and Why?

by

Many, many thanks to folks who write the RVCC newsletter for finding this in the voluminous Bioregional Assessment Steve posted here pp. 37-38.

This discussion touches on many topics that we talk about.

Simultaneous Plan Revision—All 19 forests and grasslands in the BioA area would complete plan revision at the same time. This approach, like the landscape-level approach used during the NWFP, would ensure consistency and compatibility among the plans and would contribute to standardizing the formats of land management plans to help develop a common understanding of management direction. Completing simultaneous plan modernization presents significant capacity and coordination challenges across 19 responsible officials and their staff; however, efficiencies might be realized if phases of the process are streamlined and expected timelines are met. If, during simultaneous plan updating, the required analyses are integrated and conditions change significantly on one national forest or grassland requiring different or additional analysis, all 19 units would likely be impacted. Finally, this strategy might present a challenge to meaningful engagement with the public in the planning process because of the amount and complexity of information and the breadth of the geographic scope.

Incremental Plan Revision—We would revise three to six land management plans at the same time based upon similar challenges and geography. As an example, we could start with five units in the southwestern BioA area based on growing departure in desired ecological conditions, vulnerability to fire cost and behavior, and dependency of local communities on benefits from national forests and grasslands. The planning effort on the next group of units would begin approximately 1 year before the process is complete on the first group, and so on until revisions for all 19 units are complete. This option would allow the Forest Service to focus on the units with the most urgent needs for modernization first and would support our ability to learn as we go, which will help us continually improve land management planning efficiencies. Budgeting and staffing needs would be extended across a longer period than under the simultaneous plan revision option but would be lower per year and therefore, potentially more sustainable. Under this approach it would take at least 12 years to complete revision on all 19 units and would maintain the outdated condition of many plans for a longer time. Ensuring consistency and compatibility between plans that are in different groups would require close coordination between planning teams as one group of plans is finalized and updating is started on the next group.

Amendment(s)—Under this option, we would complete a range-wide amendment of all or a subset the land management plans to address one or more of the topic areas identified as needing change in the BioA. For instance, this option could be used to develop up-front, standardized agreements on range-wide management for listed species such as the northern spotted owl. This method could specifically address issues like northern spotted owl habitat connectivity throughout its range and facilitate Engendered Species Act consultation on future plan revisions. Amendments could also be used to better align late-successional reserve boundaries with late-successional habitat. An amendment process, even at a large scale, would be shorter than full plan revisions, and might take only 2 years to complete. This approach would allow the Forest Service to focus on the most immediate needs within the BioA area and might be a more streamlined option for creating direction that is compatible with the various ecosystems and conditions. Opportunities for public engagement would be more focused on specific areas and issues, which might allow for more robust public involvement. A drawback to this approach is that it would not completely address the problems associated with overlapping management direction. In addition, while this approach would focus on the most urgent issues within the BioA area, it would not be a comprehensive modernization of all plans; plans would remain outdated and many important updates would not be completed.

Individual Forest Plan Revision—Historically, land management plans are revised or amended by individual national forests or grasslands. However, many of the ecological and socioeconomic conditions in the BioA area span many forests and grasslands and are therefore, best addressed at a landscape scale. Completing individual land management plan modernizations wouldn’t meet the agency’s goal of reducing the time and cost to produce efficient, effective, and high-quality land management plans to accomplish more work on the ground and be more responsive to our public.

Incremental Plan Revision and Amendment—We would begin modernization on a prioritized group of units, as in the incremental plan revision option, and simultaneously complete amendments on other units that are facing some of the same urgent issues. For instance, as a group of plans are updated to include refined and improved direction associated with the natural role of fire in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems, all other plans on units with similar ecosystems could be amended to incorporate the same language. This approach would allow for a broad-scale modernization of plan components to meet immediate needs without the complexity of updating many plans at the same time. The approach would contribute to consistent management of similar issues across the landscape as well as management that is compatible with the varied ecosystems. Potentially, this approach would contribute to more robust public involvement related to the specific issues on which amendments were focused. However, comprehensive modernization of most plans would still be delayed and amending plans rather than revising them would still result in overlapping layers of management direction.

Many of the identified opportunities for modernizing the land management plans in the BioA area cross multiple national forest and grassland boundaries. Some management opportunities on some national forests and grasslands are more urgent than others, while other
challenges experienced across several national forests and grasslands would benefit from a consistent approach. Some forests have a more urgent need for restoration activities to improve the resiliency of the landscape than others (figure 2-6). The need for management consistency arises when multiple national forests and grasslands face the same management challenge; an example is managing habitat to facilitate the recovery of the northern spotted owl across that species’ range (figure 2-7). We gain efficiencies by combining modernization efforts around similar management needs.

(In the document is this sidebar)

Combination approach—An Example
Relevant direction from the US Fish and Wildlife’s Conservation Strategy for Grizzly Bear in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 2019 63 has been incorporated as amendments to the land management plans for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests. The Flathead National Forest incorporated the relevant direction into its land management plan revision. This combination of revision and amendments ensures that habitat for this wide-ranging species is managed consistently and appropriately across all affected national forests.

I wish they had specific examples of why there is an “urgent” need to change, that might help us compare the different approaches. How urgent is urgent and why? Anyway, which would you pick and why? And how did they manage to do so many in 1990?

Range of variation webinar (and more)

by

This is a topic that at least Sharon and I like to debate (though for some reason she didn’t weigh in here).  The Western Environmental Law Center is offering this hour and half webinar on July 17.  As far as I know, it’s open to the public.

PNW Forest Collaboratives Workshop Series Part 3: Historical Range of Variability (HRV): Uses and Various Approaches
 
Range of Variability (ROV) concepts – including Natural (NRV), Historic (HRV), Current (CRV), and Future (FRV) – are frequently used by the US Forest Service to help define land management goals. Nathan Poage, Forest Service Ecologist, joins us to provide an introduction to ROV terminology and examples of how the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in the Blue Mountains have applied ROV concepts during project planning when addressing key requirements of the Eastside Screens. The discussion will include overviews of tools commonly used to conduct ROV analyses. Q&A will follow the presentation.
This webinar will be on Friday, July 17 from 10-11:30am Pacific Time.
Registration is required for this event. Register today by clicking this link.
Note that it also involves the Eastside Screens.  I don’t think I can make it, but I’d be interested in hearing about it.  I also wanted to point out that this is about how to apply these concepts to projects developed under antiquated forest plans that don’t include the concepts.  It was this kind of thinking that drove development of the requirement to do this instead as part of revising forest plans under the 2012 Planning Rule.  Natural Range of Variation (NRV) embraced by the Planning Rule is a required desired condition for ecosystems, which should not change over time, and therefore should not be redecided for each project.  I’d be interested in knowing how, once ROV is determined for a particular project here, it is then documented and used for future projects in the same ecosystem.
But maybe there would be more interest in this one:
PNW Forest Collaboratives Workshop Series Part 2: Collaborative Administrative and Judicial Review Opportunities
In this follow-up webinar to NEPA 101, WELC attorney Susan Jane Brown will give a presentation on and answer your questions about collaborative administrative and judicial review opportunities, and dig deeper into the administrative review process for the Forest Service, judicial review of agency decisions, and how collaborative groups can engage in these processes.
This webinar will be on Thursday, July 9 from 10-11:30am Pacific Time.
Registration is required for this event. Register today by clicking this link.

The latest on forest plan revisions (and wildlife)

by

In the past couple of months the Forest Service has increased its family of forest plans revised under the 2012 Planning Rule to six.  The Chugach and Rio Grande national forests have joined the Francis Marion, Flathead, El Yunque, and Inyo.  The Forest Service revision schedule is over six months old, but the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest may be next.

Here’s what looks like a news release from the Rio Grande.

The plan prioritizes the use of active management to foster sustainable and productive use of the forest. Compared to the 1996 plan, this new plan is less prescriptive and emphasizes flexibility and commitments to working with the public. Management direction has been updated for all plant and wildlife species.

This seems to capture the mood of the Forest Service these days.  The only commitments it has ever liked are those they have to do any way, especially if they are check-the-box kinds of procedural commitments like “working with the public.”  In their “update” for wildlife, rather than commit to protecting wildlife as required by NFMA and the Planning Rule, they infuse the plan with discretion.  Here’s some examples of what the Rio Grande seems to feel (based on the best available scientific information) would “provide the ecological conditions necessary to: contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern within the plan area” – which plan components “must” do (36 CFR §219.9(b)).

DC-SCC-2: Structure, composition, and function of coniferous forests, including late seral forests, meet the needs of associated species, including species of conservation concern. (Forestwide)

There is a series of these desired conditions for different ecosystems that all say the same thing, which is “we’ll figure out what these species need later.”  The Planning Rule requirement is for “plan components” to meet the forest plan requirement, not for project-by-project decisions about how to protect at-risk species.  Let’s see if the standards and guidelines add anything …

G-SCC-3: To maintain viability of species of conservation concern, reduce habitat fragmentation and maintain structural conditions of sagebrush ecosystems through design of management activities. Patch sizes should not be less than 5 acres. (Forestwide)

TEPC-G-1: To avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species and their habitat, management actions should be designed with attention to threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats. (Forestwide)

Wow.  Apparently any “structural conditions” will do, but they at least appear to concede that there is a minimum patch size needed for some species in sagebrush ecosystems (this is actually the kind of “specific” desired condition the Planning Rule envisioned), but conversely there is not enough science to tell them what is needed for anywhere else.  If the courts say this is good enough, then the Forest Service has essentially excised the diversity requirement for forest plans from NFMA.  (Never mind the question of “how much did the Forest Service spend on forest planning to get THIS?”)  (This is a continuation of a pattern discussed here, and may lead to some of the same kinds of problems under ESA.)

Bats and bighorns and bears (oh my?)

by

Two of these were originally posted as comments related to other posts and the third I would have, but Sharon intimated that they might not get noticed there, so here they are at the top end of a post.

BATS

We were discussing how the wolverine is most affected by climate change, and yet ESA requires mitigation of other less harmful activities that we have more control over. The effect of an introduced disease on bats also came up there.  A federal judge has just overturned a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect northern long-eared bats as threatened rather than endangered under the Endangered Species Act.  Here’s the Center for Biodiversity’s read-out of the judge’s opinion (there’s a link to the opinion, but I haven’t read it):

The Service argued that since the species was primarily threatened by disease, there was no need to protect its habitat.  But the court rightly noted that, in combination with disease, habitat destruction and other threats can cumulatively affect the bats, and thus are cause for concern.

It’s a point of contention these days whether climate change should be a factor in listing decisions when there is little likelihood of reducing its effects, but the law says it’s important to address and potentially mitigate other actions that may harm the species.

BIGHORNS

The Bridger-Teton National Forest is considering a restocking request for returning domestic sheep to two vacated allotments in the Wyoming Range.  It hinges on changing the forest plan to deemphasize protections for the Darby Mountain bighorn sheep herd. This would purportedly be consistent with the State of Wyoming’s bighorn plans.  The Forest is proposing to do a “focused amendment” to their forest plan,  but …

Bighorn advocates and conservationists who have watchdogged the restocking conversations wanted the Forest Service to instead deal with the issue in its forest plan (revision). The years-long revision process was supposedly coming up, though O’Connor said it’s now indefinitely on hold. Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation Director Steve Kilpatrick said the Darby Mountain Herd deserves the longer, closer look.

I’m not sure the Forest is going to be able to do a “focused amendment” for this issue, since bighorn sheep should be a species of conservation concern under the 2012 Planning Rule, which warrants greater attention. Maybe this is a case where the inability to revise a forest plan is going to cause some problems. Then there is the question of why these allotments were vacant. The permittees were “bought out” through the efforts of the National Wildlife Federation (to protect bighorns?). Would they need to be paid back?

GRIZZLY BEARS

The discussion of reintroducing wolves to Colorado brought up the experience with grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Montana and Idaho.  A reintroduction proposal was rejected in 2001, but at least two bears have been documented there in recent years.  Here is the recent news about that.  The Fish and Wildlife Service has written to the Forest Service that bears that have made it there are fully protected by the Endangered Species Act (not an experimental population). All four of these forests are revising or will soon revise their forest plans and will have to provide conditions to support grizzly bear recovery.  The Nez Perce-Clearwater is farthest along but has been avoiding doing that.

Forest planning for “sustainable” recreation

by

A former Forest Service backcountry specialist talks about ecological integrity and increasing human recreation activities, and tries to answer the question of “what is sustainable recreation?”  The 2012 Planning Rule requires plan components “to provide for: (i) Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character.”

What is “Sustainable Recreation”? The Forest Service defines it as “the set of recreation settings and opportunities in the National Forest System that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable for present and future generations.”

Here’s how it’s done:

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum can be used in forest planning to define a desired condition for management within each zone. Indicators and standards are meant to define the tipping point beyond which management action must be taken.
 If the standard for a backcountry area (called “semi-primitive non-motorized” in ROS jargon) is that no more than six other parties are encountered on a typical day, when the encounter rate exceeds that number some action is supposed to take place to return to the desired condition.
It’s a neat framework, but doesn’t always play out as intended on the ground. ROS doesn’t differentiate between a semi-primitive area in the back yard of a town like Jackson or Bozeman and one that’s two hours away.
That seems like a major shortcoming, especially if all areas with a SPNM designation must have the same desired level of semi-primitive non-motorized use.  However, the Planning Handbook encourages “new approaches,” including creating “desired recreation opportunity spectrum subclasses” §(23.23a).
The usual sequence of remedial actions begins with non-intrusive measures like visitor education. If the problem isn’t solved, additional actions are considered.
The Bridger-Teton forest plan is typical in its prescribed sequence of actions, this excerpt taken from its direction on wilderness. The following recreational strategies should be used, listed in descending order of preference:
First Action – Efforts are directed towards information and education programs and correction of visible resource damage.
Second Action – If the first action is unsuccessful, restrict activities by regulation (for example, set a minimum distance between a lakeshore and where people can camp).
Third Action – If the first and second actions fail, restrict numbers of visitors.
Fourth Action – If first, second, and third actions are not successful, a zone can be closed to all recreation use until the area is rehabilitated and restored to natural conditions.
In my experience, outside of designated wilderness and other special areas where specific laws apply, the Forest Service keeps circling around the first action, which isn’t a bad strategy given the continuing need for it in communities where resident turnover is high.  It’s an ongoing need regardless of the often unmet requirement to step up restrictions. But restrictions trigger blowback, as when the Shasta-Trinity National Forest tried to set encounter limits for the wilderness that includes Mt. Shasta.
People basically said they don’t care if it’s crowded—they just want to reach the summit, and a judge agreed with them. On the other hand, those who float the Selway River are happy to wait until they get a launch day shared by no one else. Since everyone is going the same direction at about the same speed, everyone can experience a bit of peace and quiet. So the application of sustainable recreation standards depends on who is using the forest and what they will accept.
And those are the questions that forest planning should be designed to answer.  (Note:  the Bridger-Teton plan has not been revised, so may not be the current state-of-the-art.  Also, I couldn’t find the court case referred to.)  And this must be done against the backdrop of a requirement for ecological integrity.
User-built trails and roads are often the opposite of sustainable. They develop incrementally and aren’t designed with soil type, grades and curve radii in mind, or the needs of resident wildlife. The trail system after adoption by the Forest Service usually gets reworked so it doesn’t turn into deep ruts or wash into the creek, but where is the analysis that determines that the trail location is right in the first place?  The trail itself becomes more sustainable, but where do the grouse and elk and owls go?
The adoption of forest plan of components for desired recreational use has effects that must be evaluated during the NEPA process, but rarely does the Forest Service devote much attention to this.
The author describes a common fallacious argument that the Forest Service likes to make about sustainability to avoid controversy:
While the planning rule makes clear that ecological integrity underlies compatible uses in a national forest, the ecological, economical, and social sustainability have since been referred to as a three-legged stool, with all three legs of equal importance.
But if you parse the actual language of the Planning Rule, it is apparent that the ecological leg needs to support more weight (driven by the substantive diversity requirement of NFMA) (my emphasis).
“Plans will guide management of NFS lands so that they ARE ecologically sustainable and CONTRIBUTE TO social and economic sustainability; CONSIST OF ecosystems and watersheds with ecological integrity and diverse plant and animal communities; and HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PROVIDE people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses that provide a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future.

Modeling for Decisions IV. In Practice – Climate Change and the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (and Forest Planning)

by

It’s fortuitous that we have this recent example of how a court viewed a population model for an at-risk wildlife species that addresses climate change. The court included the usual caveat that, “Deference to the agency “is especially strong where the challenged decisions involve technical or scientific matters within the agency’s area of expertise.”

It is undisputed that the Service attempted to estimate the effects of climate change by using both “moderate” and “severe” predictions of expected effects, and that for the severe model, it “increased the risk function over time by 20 percent for the 2040 forecast and 40 percent for the 2080 forecast.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 59,147–48. The Plaintiffs take issue with the Service’s observation that the differences in results from the moderate and severe climate change models were “not particularly large.” Disbelieving that this could be a correct conclusion, the Plaintiffs thus suggest that the models “are driven by the Service’s assumption that climate change will have relatively little influence on the threats to individual Trout populations.” (# 76 at 26.)

But the Plaintiffs’ argument begs its own question, assuming that the Service’s models are infected by false preexisting assumptions that climate change effects with be minimal. It is essential to note that the Plaintiffs have not gotten “under the hood” of the Service’s models and pointed out any methodological, programming, or data entry flaws with them. Rather, the Plaintiffs simply argue that the models must be flawed because they produced results with which the Plaintiffs disagree. It may be that the models are flawed, but it may also be that that Plaintiffs’ (and the Service’s as of 2008) expectations about climate change effects are misplaced. Ultimately, it is the Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate an error in the Service’s actions, and simply pointing out that two different methodological approaches to calculating the effects of climate change in the far future produced two different results, one of which the Plaintiffs disagree with, does not suffice to carry that burden.

The threatened inquiry takes a longer-term view, asking whether the species might become endangered in a more distant future. But the threatened inquiry is necessarily closed-ended; once the Court has reached the endpoint of the “foreseeable future” (a term found in ESA, and defined recently by regulation) — which the parties here agree is 2080 — the Court’s ability to prognosticate must also come to an end. After 2080, nothing can be foreseen, all is simply speculation. So it is meaningless to ask whether a species will be threatened as of 2080, because it is impossible in 2080 to engage in the long-term future examination that the threatened analysis requires. By 2080, a species must have either reached the level of endangered and be at immediate risk of extinction, or it never will.

As the Plaintiffs observe, it appears that the Trout is on a “slide towards extinction.” (# 76 at 35.) But if the Service’s models are correct — and in the absence of a challenge, the Court must assume that they are — that slide will not be completed as of or immediately following 2080. At that time, there will still be 50 populations of Trout remaining, a number that the Service believes (and the Plaintiffs have not disputed) is enough to ensure the species’ survival through some indeterminate point in the future. What might become of those 50 populations after 2080 is beyond our ability to foresee; the curtain has come down and the movie has ended. We could attempt to speculate about what might happen thereafter — the 50 populations could persist, they could perish, new populations could be discovered, old habitats could become viable again — but speculation is all it would be. Our ability to predict what might happen has come to an end.

This analysis and decision actually has some important implications for forest planning (from the 2013 Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Conservation Strategy).

Of the total 1,110 km (690 mi) of occupied habitat, 698 km (434 mi) (63 percent) are under Federal jurisdiction, with the majority (59 percent) occurring within National Forests (Alves et al. 2008).

Range-wide, a large proportion of the watershed conditions within the forests that have Rio Grande cutthroat trout are rated as “functioning at risk,” which means that they exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition (USFS 2011)

Land management activities are currently practiced according to the Carson, Santa Fe, and Rio Grande National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, and BLM Resource Management Plans. During scheduled revisions, the forests and BLM field offices will evaluate the current Land and Resource Management Plans and update as necessary to provide adequate protection for Rio Grande cutthroat trout with current best management practices. Land management activities that would result in the loss of habitat or cause a reduction in long-term habitat quality will be avoided.

 

If the trout is a warranted for listing (even if precluded by higher priorities), it is a “candidate” species under ESA.   The Planning Rule requires that forest plan components conserve candidate species (which under ESA means the same thing as recover). Since this decision that listing is no longer warranted was reversed, that should mean the species is again a candidate species.

Of course, national forests where the trout is found have been revising their forest plans after 2014, when listing was no longer considered warranted. Consequently, the Rio Grande cutthroat was considered for inclusion as a species of conservation concern. The Rio Grande National Forest has identified the species as an SCC in its final plan (currently in the objection period). The requirement for forest plans for SCC is for plan components to maintain a viable population.

Logically, a species that is warranted for listing should warrant greater protection than one that is not. So it’s possible that the Rio Grande will need to reconsider plan components in areas that are important to this species, or to at least document why this change doesn’t make a difference.

Which could bring us back to the modeling question – how does the Forest Service show that it is meeting the NFMA requirement to provide ecological conditions necessary for this species?   If there is a working population model for a species, then those factors that may be influenced by national forest management should be examined to determine how they could change as a result of forest plan decisions, and whether or how that could affect the model results.