2012 Planning Rule

Timber numbers in revised forest plans

by

If there is one thing the Forest Service should have learned from the last round of forest planning, it is that they should put realistic projections of timber volume in their forest plans.  These numbers are going to create expectations for the timber industry and Congress that will translate into pressure to produce that amount.  It’s when they try to plan timber programs and sales that are more intensive than are appropriate for other resources (i.e. wildlife) that they often end up in litigation.

Unfortunately, what I’ve seen in the few revised plans that have gotten this far looks like a continuing tendency to declare as many acres as possible to be suitable for timber management (defined as growing a regulated crop of trees), and to be evasive about how much future volumes would be reduced because of the presence of at-risk wildlife species (and the standards and guidelines required to provide their habitat).

In addition, there is a greater emphasis on the role of agency in budgets in determining the amount of timber that will be produced, to the point that forest plan alternatives may differ as much in their assumed budgets as they do in actual management direction.  This is despite the fact that forest plans do not make budget decisions.

I get the feeling that there is a lack of transparency developing about the real tradeoffs involved in national forest management so that the Forest Service can once again promise everything for everyone, and then give itself the most flexibility to find timber sales on the largest possible suitable land base.

Here is an article on how the Flathead National Forest is addressing these questions in its plan revision.

Fire planning in the southern Sierras

by

This article describes the draft revised plans for the Inyo, Sierra and Sequoia national forests (from an ag industry perspective).  The way it characterizes the plans’ approach to fire, maybe this approach would make Robin Stanley happy:

The preferred alternative, known as Alternative B, would replace wildland-urban defense and threat zones with a “risk-based wildfire restoration zone and wildfire maintenance zone” to allow for “strategically located fuel reduction treatments along roads, ridgelines and connecting areas with lower fuels to support larger landscape-scale prescribed burning.”

Under the heading “Ecological Integrity,” the preferred alternative calls for improved habitat for endangered and protected species and old-growth forest areas. It also calls for removal of some large and old trees in areas designated as wildfire-protection zones.

This will hopefully lead to some scrutiny of the “best available scientific information” behind the strategy.  I find it hard to believe that the local residents could be convinced to give up their “wildland-urban defense and threat zones.”  And then there’s the question of whether this science has any relevance to the forests of Idaho or elsewhere.

And then there’s the question of whether this approach is consistent with the natural range of variation for ecological conditions for at-risk species so that it really does improve their habitat.   If so, it would be a win for everybody.   Except the timber industry doesn’t like it.

But – I commend the Forest Service for treating fire planning as a core element of these plan revisions, and putting this out in public for discussion.

Join the forest plan revision party

by

The Francis Marion National Forest was the first out of the gate last fall.  It is now joined by the southern Sierra national forests (Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra) and Flathead.  The draft plan and EIS for the Sierra forests were released on May 27th for a 90-day public comment period.  The Flathead will be officially out on Friday June 3rd for a 120-day comment period (but the documents are on their website now).  Experience the 2012 Planning Rule!

It’s just an administrative rule

by

The courts are finished with addressing the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule’s application to Alaska.  The Supreme Court won’t review the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the attempt to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the rule.  Whew – glad that’s finally over.  But wait, there’s an election coming, and roadless rule opponents are thinking about that:

“And then the other thing is we could just get a … federal administration that’s friendly toward responsible resource development and they can just rescind the rule because it’s an administrative rule. It’s nothing that Congress passed.” (Owen Graham of the Alaska Forest Association)

And why stop with Alaska; rescind the entire roadless rule.  And why not replace the 2012 Planning Rule, too?  The possibilities are endless.

Forest planning contributes to listing species under ESA

by

A recent federal court decision has invalidated the listing of the lesser prairie chicken.  A key reason for the court’s decision was that the Fish and Wildlife Service made an assumption that if it didn’t list the species, it would reduce the incentive for participation in a conservation plan.  The judge didn’t think that was a valid assumption.  The Forest Service seems determined to prove him wrong.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the Forest Service has the opportunity to help forestall the need to list species under ESA by identifying them as species of conservation concern and including protective plan components for them.  The wolverine received a positive 90-day finding that listing should be considered, but the FWS ultimately decided not to.   In response, the three forest plan revision efforts that are proceeding under the 2012 Rule and have wolverine habitat (Nez Perce-Clearwater, Flathead, Helena-Lewis & Clark) have determined that the wolverine should not be identified as a species of conservation concern.

The FWS will be looking for evidence their assumption was correct.  The lesser prairie chicken may have the Forest Service to thank when it eventually gets listed.  (And the wolverine, too.)

Creating the Next Generation of National Forest Plans

by

I was going to call it “A New Century of Forest Planning,” but it looked like that was taken.  For those of you who were attracted to this blog by its original title, you may find this article useful.

Thanks to the Bolle Center for publishing it.  It seems appropriate that one of the students whom Dr. Bolle mentored in the early 70s can use the institution honoring him to critique the state of the law and policies he helped inspire – and hopefully continue his role of bringing attention to public lands management controversies.

Court takes an interest in habitat connectivity – so should the Forest Service

by

Connectivity is a new buzzword in the 2012 Planning Rule. It is part of the requirement for ecological integrity, but the Forest Service seems reluctant to fully embrace it in its early revision efforts under the new rule.

On June 25th, the Arizona District Court invalidated a Forest Service grazing permit on the Coconino National Forest because the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to consider effects on habitat connectivity in areas designated as critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. The judge held (in Center for Biological Diversity v. Branton):

Viable dispersal corridors are needed to ensure that the Buckskin Hills can sustain a functioning metapopulation: without them, CLFs would be unable to spread from one stock tank to another, and would be unable to recolonize a stock tank should its local population die out (record citations omitted). Accordingly, adverse modification of the dispersal corridors would “appreciably diminish the value” of (the critical habitat unit). In short, the 2013 BiOp’s failure to account for the maleffects of livestock grazing in dispersal corridors renders its conclusion that the Proposed Action “should not significantly reduce or modify” PCE 2b (record citation omitted) arbitrary and capricious.

This was a project decision involving a listed species and critical habitat. However, the principles of metapopulation dynamics it recognizes should be equally applicable to NFMA requirements that forest plan components provide ecological conditions necessary for viable populations.   This opinion suggests that, where connectivity is necessary for an at-risk species, and where information about the connectivity value of specific areas is available, their locations should be identified in the planning process and probably given special protection by plan components.

In this case, a requirement in the forest plan to apply specific conservation measures to dispersal corridors might have saved this project. Moreover, fixing this project would not prevent the same thing from happening on other projects. This suggests that the Forest Service should amend the plan (which would be subject to the 2012 Planning Rule requirements for viability), or at least reinitiate consultation on the forest plan on critical habitat for this species (based on new information about effects – but wait – this is the 10th Circuit, where that is not required.) What should the Forest Service do?

FYI – Here’s what Defenders of Wildlife thinks the Forest Service should do about connectivity in its forest plans.  (I suppose I should explain that I did the work on this document on a contract, and that I contribute to this blog on my own time, so that I am not intending to represent the views of Defenders of Wildlife here.)

Blue Mountains revision restart – FS stumbles out of the gate

by

The three forest supervisors for the national forests in the Blue Mountains published a guest column with an invitation to meet with any and all interested parties as part of a “re-engagement strategy for the communities in the Blue Mountains.”  Unfortunately they also chose to make an off-script policy statement:

We want Forest Plans that provide resiliency for our communities in Eastern Oregon and Washington; Plans that support the local economy and the social values of the people who use and depend on them. We also want resiliency in ecosystems that can withstand: drought, floods, wildfire, invasive species, human impacts and have the strength to return to healthy ecosystems in the long run.

These plans are being developed under the 1982 planning regulations, but that does not excuse them from the agency policy on “resilience” (which I’m fairly sure is not found in the 1982 regulations).  In the 2012 Planning Rule, the term resilient/resilience is used only in the definitions of “restoration” and “viable population,” and the concept of “resilient ecosystems” (or “healthy ecosystems”) was replaced by “ecological integrity.”

Most importantly, the Planning Rule never uses the term “resiliency” in connection with social or economic factors.  It recognizes that forest plans can NOT “provide resiliency” for communities, and that this should not be used as a justification to support any particular local business or values.  Under the 2012 Rule, forest plans must “guide the plan area’s contribution to social and economic sustainability.”  And this is not limited to local interests, but instead explicitly extends to “the area influenced by the plan” and regional and national economies.

When you start by over-promising, there is a good chance you’re going to under-deliver (again).

Sage grouse plans are out

by

Here are national and state perspectives.

 

The proposals to amend federal BLM and Forest Service plans to protect sage grouse have been released. I haven’t read the new plan components but I have followed the process since I was peripherally involved before I retired from the FS, and I was also more heavily involved in developing similar strategies for bull trout, lynx and grizzly bears. This is the way conservation planning on federal lands should be done – but BEFORE it gets to the point of possible listing and this kind of crisis management.

 

It would be nice to see this happening now in the forest plan revision process for species of conservation concern (for which a regional forester has found “substantial concern about a species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area”). Instead of consistent conservation strategies being developed (based on ecosystem and/or species-specific plan components) we see species like wolverine, which recently barely (and maybe temporarily) dodged listing, not even being identified as a species of conservation concern in the Idaho and Montana plans that are being revised.   There doesn’t seem to be a learning process here.

 

But the states are worse. They’ve had jurisdiction over sage grouse for the last century or two, and we’ve seen what results. It’s pretty laughable for them to now say the feds should follow state plans for sage grouse.

 

This is just flat out wrong,” Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said of the plan. “If the Administration really cares about the bird they will adopt the state plans as they originally said they would. The state plans work. This proposal is only about controlling land, not saving the bird.”

 

Are the states trying to save the bird, or do they just see this as another opportunity to exert their control on federal lands?

 

Northwest Forest Plan successes (Geos)

by

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the best available scientific information must be used to inform the assessment, which is then to be used to determine the need to change a forest plan.  The Geos Institute has gotten out ahead of the pack with its ‘assessment.’  I’m most interested in this:

“Scientists involved in the Northwest Forest Plan recognized that even with the Plan’s protective standards it would take at least a century to restore the late-successional (mature and old growth) forest ecosystem reduced by logging to a fraction (<20%) of its historical extent. While it is premature to judge the efficacy of a 100-year plan in just two decades, scientific assessments have shown that it has achieved many of its ecosystem management targets.”

The Planning Rule specifically requires that forest plans “include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area …”  Ecological integrity requires that ecological characteristics like composition and structure “occur within the natural range of variation.”  With regard to wide-ranging at-risk species (such as spotted owls), the Planning Rule requires “plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan area to contribute to maintaining a viable population of the species within its range.”

Assuming that “<20% of its historical extent” is at least in the ballpark, what is the rationale (and the supporting best available scientific information) for changing forest plans to allow increased levels of logging of late-successional forest ecosystems?  (Has the ‘bare minimum’ changed, or has the science behind how to achieve it?)