Objections

Nantahala-Pisgah forest plan revision – done

by

 

The Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest has completed revising its forest plan.  The final plan was released on February 16 and implementation began last week.  The revision website is here, and the response to the objections is here.

Said Sam Evans, leader of the National Forests and Parks Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center (and Smokey Wire contributor) “A big disappointment for me here at the end of the process is that it is more of the same. It’s going to drive a wedge between stakeholders that had found consensus.” “We can sue over the plan,” Evans said. “We can oppose projects as they come up under the new plan. I would say the only thing that’s not an option for us is letting this plan roll out and be implemented in a way that continues to degrade those same resources — unroaded areas, healthy, intact forests like the state Natural Heritage Areas and existing old growth.”  The ”stakeholders” would be the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership of 20 interested organizations.  This article continues to discuss these disappointments in more detail (though apparently not all of the stakeholders are unhappy).

The Partnership wanted to see various tier objectives tied together so that, for instance, the Forest Service couldn’t move on to Tier 2 timber harvest goals without first meeting Tier 1 goals in other areas, such as invasive species management and watershed protection. Additionally, the Partnership said, the plan should require ecological restoration treatments to be paired with any commercial timber harvest occurring on the forest landscape.

The group was also concerned that 54,000 acres of state Natural Heritage Natural Areas were placed in management areas open to commercial logging and road building, and that the plan didn’t allow for protection of old growth patches found during timber projects. The group wanted to see a “cap and trade” approach to the 265,000-acre Old Growth Network identified in the plan, so that lower-quality patches in the network could be swapped out for higher-quality patches encountered during projects.

According to Evans, only 30,000 acres of the 265,000 acres is at the minimum age level to qualify as old growth, and the remainder is middle-aged forest of 60-100 years. Meanwhile, known old growth stands were not included in the network. The Forest Service does not have a figure for the number of acres in the network that currently qualify as old growth. “We’re trading young forest that maybe will become older one day for existing old growth now,” Evans said, “and that isn’t a good trade for the species that live in old growth forests and don’t move around.”

The forest supervisor had an interesting response to this old growth issue:  “Because of the complexity of the forest, there’s always going to be places that we might find a particular stand that is in that older forest type, and we can say, ‘You know what, that’s an area that’s special, and that we want to favor for those types, and that’s part of a larger project that’s holistic in a given area,’” he said.  They CAN say that project-by-project, but by allowing that flexibility, does the PLAN comply with the requirements for it to affirmatively provide habitat for at-risk species?

There is also disagreement about whether it does what it should to address climate change.  It apparently pits carbon storage (mitigation) vs “resilience” (adaptation).  Shouldn’t carbon storage projections include any additional risk of having less “resilient” forests?  There was a recent question on this blog about how forest plans are dealing with climate change.  This article (which also highlights the criticisms of the plan) lists the Forest Service’s seven main goals for “dealing with the impacts of climate change” (which are about adaptation rather than mitigation)

  • “Where there are species at risk that are susceptible to the effects of climate change, promote activities that support suitable habitat enhancement.
  • “Consider and address future climate and potential species range shifts when planning restoration projects, facilitating species migration and adaptation when possible.
  • “Monitor for new invasive species moving into areas where they were traditionally not found, especially in high-elevation communities. Utilize the monitoring information to assess threats and prioritize treating highly invasive infestations.
  • “Restore native vegetation in streamside zones to help moderate changes in water temperature and stream flow and enhance habitat.
  • “Anticipate and plan for changes in natural disturbance patterns.
  • “Prepare for intense storms and fluctuations in base flow using methods that maintain forest health and diversity, including controlling soil erosion, relocating high risk roads and trails, and constructing appropriately sized culverts and stream crossings while retaining stream connectivity.
  • “To maintain genetic resiliency, consider locally adapted genotypes for use in restoration projects.”

What’s next?  Will Harlan, a scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity said (here) communities still  not satisfied with the decision will “use every tool possible” including “public engagement, community involvement (and) litigation” to push back against what the plan could do to forests.

However, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was “pleased.”

TSW Reporter Info Request: Relatively Urgent: Context for Forest Plan Objections

by

One of the goals of TSW has always been to help reporters gain context for their stories, and to provide a means for doing so by using our network to find knowledgeable people on a given topic.

So… this question is about Forest plan objections.  Does anyone know who is tracking the different ways Forests are going about conducting the objection process? Does anyone know who is tracking the success of the results, and/or thinking about what metrics might be used to do so?

If we jointly don’t know any folks (including academics, of course) doing that, is there anyone out there who could talk about their own experiences of conducting or participating in the forest plan objection process?

If you don’t feel comfortable posting, just email me at terraveritas at gmail and I will forward to the reporter.

Thanks in advance!!

Recent forest plan litigation

by

Litigation about the validity of a forest plan doesn’t happen very often, but two revised forest plans have been in the news for that lately.

Flathead court decision

The Montana District Court has decided the first case reviewing a forest plan revised under the 2012 Planning Rule, and it rejected decisions made in the Flathead plan related to roads because of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service had not adequately analyzed the effects of roads on grizzly bears and bull trout.  The court held that the process of revising the forest plan violated the Endangered Species Act; plaintiffs did not challenge compliance with NFMA or the Planning Rule. The court found no violations of NEPA and travel planning requirements.  The revised plan remains in effect pending additional analysis, but additional analysis will also be required for ongoing projects.  I haven’t read the opinion yet, and it’s not clear to me why these projects should not also be required to comply with the old plan direction for roads, which would have limited road construction, unless/until the revised plan complies with ESA.

This article quotes the judge on the crux of the case regarding grizzly bears:

“The mere fact that the (NCDE) population was increasing from 2004-2011 does not justify moving away from the existing management requirements of Amendment 19. In effect, by recognizing that Amendment 19 laid the foundation for recovery of the NCDE population and then using that recovery as justification for getting rid of the existing access conditions, the Fish and Wildlife Service eschews Amendment 19 precisely because it was working. This action is arbitrary and capricious,” Molloy wrote.

Additionally, the article continues:

Molloy agreed the choice of conditions in 2011 was arbitrary. Even had the choice been acceptable, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should have analyzed whether the new Forest Plan would have exceeded the 2011 baseline, which was a reflection of conditions existing while Amendment 19 influenced the plan. But the agency didn’t do that.

The USFWS also didn’t explain why it didn’t recommend culvert removal as part of road abandonment to aid bull trout survival. Molloy pointed out that the agency’s 2015 Bull Trout Recovery Plan emphasizes the importance of culvert removal and road decommissioning. But then the agency backed off, saying culvert removal wasn’t necessary in its 2017 biological opinion on the Flathead National Forest plan. Molloy acknowledged that part of the reasoning is because the roads aren’t being accessed, but evidence showed that at least two-thirds are being used.

Finally, Molloy said the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to analyze how the new plan would harm grizzly bears on Forest Service land outside of the NDCE core area. So the biological opinion is flawed, as is the agency’s calculation of bears killed or affected by the plan, and the Flathead National Forest erred in basing its plan on a flawed opinion, Molloy wrote.

A key factor in the decision was apparently evidence presented by plaintiffs that requirements for road closures in the forest plan would actually result in continued public use of the closed roads.

This article quotes timber industry intervenors:

“It’s a pretty thorough and nuanced opinion,” said Lawson Fite, an American Forest Resource Council attorney representing the Montana Logging Association.

Colville new lawsuit

There may be more legal action ahead involving NFMA in new litigation filed on the recently revised Colville Forest Plan, which was summarized here (this plan was revised using the 1982 planning regulations). Most of the attention is probably on the Sanpoil Project, where plaintiffs raise issues related to the site-specificity of the analysis (see condition-based NEPA). They also make a NEPA claim related to our many discussions of historic/natural variability (versus an alternative that “was actually focused on maximizing timber revenue”); more on the forest plan aspects of that below.

One of the forest plan issues is old growth – specifically the elimination of the Eastside Screens which imposed a diameter limit on trees harvested, and whether the revised plan direction adequately provides for viability of old growth species in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 planning regulations, which require that old growth be “well-distributed.”  The revised plan also eliminated pileated woodpeckers and American marten as management indicator species for old growth and did not replace them with anything.

The Forest prepared an “issue paper” on old growth as part of the objection process, which I will highlight below (you might want to keep in mind our recent HRV vs NRV discussions, though this is not an explicit requirement of the 1982 regulations):

The proposed Forest Plan replaces Eastside Screens with a series of desired HRV conditions (described in FEIS, Vol. 1, pp. 92-94, 99-132) but allows cutting of individual large trees when needed to meet desired conditions for structural stages, along with several other exceptions (FEIS, Vol. I, pp. 28-30). It provides a desired condition for forest structure (FW-DC-VEG-03) that provides for a diversity in forage and wildlife habitat. Additionally, forest-wide desired condition (FW-DC-WL-03 and FW-DC-WL-13) state that habitat conditions should be consistent with the historical range of variability.

Instead of fixed reserves in the current Forest Plan the proposed Forest Plan would have late structure contained throughout the landscape and all actions that affect forest vegetation would be assessed and compared to HRV, with the goal of moving the overall landscape toward HRV.

The proposed Forest Plan will result in approximately 780,592 acres of late forest structure in 100 years, which is slightly less than the current Forest Plan (810,583 acres). The proposed Forest Plan would, however, allow structure classes to shift around the landscape in response to disturbance and may result in more resilient forest landscapes.

The effects analysis described in the FEIS shows that maintaining a 21″ diameter limit reduces the ability to attain the desired future condition of having a majority of most vegetation types in late structure.

It’s great that they actually projected the amount of late forest structure.  Based on the planned/expected reduction, I would have to conclude that their assessment told them they had too much of this compared to historic conditions.  I think that would be fairly unique and create a burden to demonstrate that using best available science (which plaintiffs seem to be disputing).  The last two paragraphs are a little hard to reconcile since the current plan would produce more old growth, but maybe there is too much of some old growth vegetation types and not enough of others?

The forest structure desired condition (FW-DC-VEG-03) includes an evaluation of the historical range of variability (HRV) and vegetation treatments at the project level will need to show movement toward this desired condition. This means that until the desired condition is reached, existing late structure would need to be maintained on the landscape.

This is an important interpretation of what they think their forest plan requires.  Hopefully it says something close to this in the plan itself, but regardless, their EIS effects analysis would have been based on it and they should be held to it when project consistency is evaluated.

Now what happens when a new species on a national forest is listed under ESA?

by

Once upon a time, when a new species was listed under ESA, the Forest Service was required to reinitiate consultation on its forest plan regarding the effects of the plan on the species.  Projects were often held up while this was occurring.  As a result of the Cottonwood litigation, involving a new designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx, the law was recently changed so that neither new critical habitat nor listings require new consultation on existing forest plans (as discussed here).

The candy darter (CBD photo) was listed as endangered in late 2018 and it is found on the Monongahela National Forest.  The Center for Biological Diversity provided this news release regarding a proposed timber sale in a watershed where the species is found and where critical habitat for it is being considered:

The U.S. Forest Service this week announced it will withdraw a 2,400-acre logging project in West Virginia’s Monongahela National Forest following objections raised by conservation groups about harm to an endangered fish.

The project would likely have caused significant erosion and sent sediment into rivers and streams, threatening the rare fish and other animals.

“Friends of Blackwater and all of our supporters are very pleased that the Monongahela National Forest supervisor has withdrawn the Big Rock Timber Project proposal,” said Judy Rodd, director of Friends of Blackwater. “Hopefully this is a step toward fully protecting the candy darter, a tiny jewel of a fish found in the timbering proposal area, near the world-famous Cranberry Glades.”

The Forest Service announcement said the project would have been the first of its kind to require formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act for the brightly colored candy darter, which was listed as endangered in November 2018. The Fish and Wildlife Service would have had to calculate how many, if any, candy darters could be killed or harmed by the proposed project. The Fish and Wildlife Service also plans to include portions of the logging project area in its final designation of the fish’s critical habitat. Those issues contributed to the decision to pull the project.

Presumably the Monongahela has come to a full stop on projects that may affect the darter, while they figure out a strategy for consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service.  This is pretty close to the same result that would have occurred without the “Cottonwood fix.”  This is a situation where consultation on a forest plan has proven beneficial.  It should result in a species conservation strategy that “fully protects” the species’ habitat on the forest that the FWS supports and that can be included in the forest plan.  The FWS may then rely on the forest plan decisions and their biological opinion for analysis of its overall effects, which would simplify and streamline the consultation process for projects.

Post-Cottonwood, they could now choose instead to proceed on an individual project-by-project basis, but why?

(PS – This looks like an example where the administrative objection process prevented the Forest Service from losing a lawsuit.)

2016 election consequences for Colorado federal lands

by

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management over the last several years have been developing long-term Resource Management Plans for more than 3 million acres of BLM lands in Eastern Colorado and the Uncompahgre Plateau and in the Rio Grande National Forest.  According to this article, the state and local communities are not happy.

The Trump-driven shift toward more oil and gas development on public lands worries Colorado politicians and conservation groups that are steering the state toward increased protections. Agencies within the same department seem in conflict. Long-studied plans are changing between between draft and final reports, with proposed protections fading away and opportunities for extraction growing…

“What we are seeing is the full effect — in proposed actions — of the 2016 election at the local level,” Ouray County Commissioner Ben Tisdel said.

The article goes into detail about the effects on the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan:

County commissioners from Gunnison, Ouray and San Miguel counties have filed protests with the BLM over the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan. The counties have been involved with the planning for eight years. In 2016, the counties submitted comments on the plan outlining concerns for the Gunnison sage grouse and listing parcels the agency should protect and retain as federal lands.

“Alternative E proposed doing all the things we specifically asked them not to do,” said Tisdel, the Ouray County commissioner, adding that lands his county wanted protected were listed in the 2019 plan for possible disposal by the agency. “We thought we had a pretty good product in 2016 and now we have this new alternative, Alternative E, that goes way beyond anything we had seen before and is awful in ways we never thought of before.”

With regard to the Rio Grande National Forest revised forest plan:

The move from that September 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the final version released in August has riled conservationists and sportsmen. Goals established for air quality, designated trails, fisheries management, fire management, wildlife connectivity and habitat were scaled back in between the draft and final versions.

Colorado’s governor has weighed in on the BLM plan (in language consistent with the Western Governors Association policies):

The resource management plan’s “failure to adopt commitments consistent with the state plans, policies and agreements hinders Colorado’s ability to meet its own goals and objectives for wildlife in the planning area,” Polis wrote.

The BLM had an interesting response:

“There is room to adjust within the RMP, which has a built-in adaptive management strategy,” he said. “We are ready to respond as the state’s plans are complete.”

So they plan to do whatever the state wants them to do later?  “Room to adjust within the RMP” appears to mean that they don’t have to go through a plan amendment process with the public, which seems unlikely to be legal for the kinds of changes the state appears to want.  (It definitely wouldn’t work for national forest plans.)

The Western Energy Alliance blames the governor for being late to the game:

It doesn’t get a complete do-over just because something new happens, like Gov. Polis issues a new order.”

But it does apparently get a complete do-over because a new federal government administration says so.  There may still be some legal process (e.g. NEPA) questions this raises.

Midwest timber wars revisited

by

For the first time in nearly three decades, the Shawnee National Forest in Illinois has proposed a commercial timber harvest of mostly native oaks and hickories. And environmental activists whose high-profile fight against logging in the 1990s led to a 17-year moratorium are once again raising alarms.

Lisa Helmig, acting forest supervisor with the Shawnee National Forest, said the plan is rooted in the best available science about how to maintain the keystone oak ecosystem that is native to the Shawnee foothills.  “The oak ecosystem has been in place here in the central hardwood region for 5,000 years,” she said. But Helmig said the ecosystem is at risk due to a lack of natural or man-made disturbances, such as fire, storms and, yes, even logging. Without these disturbances, non-native, shade-tolerant sugar maple and beech trees sprout up and fill in the forest’s midstory, she said.

The activists have filed an objection, based largely on their past experience with timber harvest on the Forest.

The trees that have grown up to replace the harvested oaks and hickories are mostly 28-year-old stands of “undesirable” beeches and maples.  “When you think about how many oaks were here, it’s heart-wrenching,” Wallace said “Had they not cut the oaks, we’d have oaks here,” Stearns added. In addition to the Farview site, in their letter they write that we also returned to the North End Ecological Restoration project logged in Pope County in the late 1990s. “Little to no oak and hickory have been visibly restored.” They cited other examples, as well.

This is the root of their concern: What the Shawnee National Forest’s leadership claims is happening isn’t.

Asked about their concerns, Helmig said that her “gut reaction” is that the Forest Service likely didn’t follow through with what should be a multiphase treatment. Helmig said she’s confident that the Forest Service is committed to seeing (this) project through… “We have a wonderful silviculturist on staff now,” Helmig said. “He’s been here five years and is absolutely fantastic.”

Hopefully we can assume that there has been a science-based determination that ecological integrity requires regenerating some young oaks and hickories.  But implementation unfortunately still boils down to “trust us,” and “we’re different now.”   (But then the Forest evicted the media from the objection meeting, wrongly according to the Washington Office.)

Forest planning for wildlife corridors

by

The 2012 Planning Rule requires that forest plan revisions address wildlife habitat connectivity. In fact it is one of the “dominant ecological characteristics” that must occur with the “natural range of variation” in order to meet the substantive regulatory requirement for “ecological integrity” and the NFMA statutory requirement for “plant and animal diversity.” The Rio Grande National Forest doesn’t seem to want to take this seriously in its revised forest plan, as recounted here:

“At the federal level, New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall and others have proposed a Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act to create more tools for protecting migration routes. Our neighbors in New Mexico passed a state wildlife corridors act earlier this year. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has emphasized the need to ratchet up awareness and protection of corridors. And even former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke issued an order to conserve big-game migration corridors and winter range.

“Hence, with all of this activity agitating for increased concern and elevated action to protect wildlife corridors, the new management plan just announced by the Rio Grande National Forest is astonishingly tone deaf. Our national forest neighbors to the east finalized their long-awaited 20-year vision and ignored widespread calls for action to elevate wildlife corridors.

“It’s a disappointing example of compartmentalization taken to the extreme. Immediately adjacent across the state line in New Mexico, the Carson National Forest unveiled its draft plan and highlighted extraordinary wildlife values there around San Antonio Mountain with a dedicated Wildlife Management Area.  But it’s as though an administrative wall exists at the state line.”

“Having the Interior Department and state wildlife agencies and elected officials and some national forests all calling for action to protect wildlife corridors isn’t enough if one critical player, like the Rio Grande National Forest, is missing in action.”

It only takes one bad actor to ruin a wildlife corridor. That is a reason why connectivity was given such a high profile in national forest planning for diversity (I was there). The Rio Grand is currently taking objections to its final revised plan, which will be reviewed by someone at the regional level to determine if the Forest is meeting its connectivity/diversity obligations.  However, this is a cross-regional problem (Region 2 and Region 3), which is why the national office of the Forest Service needs to look at why forests in two regions can’t get their acts together on what conditions are needed for connectivity.

Maybe they should also take a look at a recent example in Region 4. This is a case where a state-recognized wildlife corridor led to changes in a trail project on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

“The now-scrapped trail could have interfered specifically with the Red Desert-to-Hoback mule deer migration corridor, which was the first route designated by the state of Wyoming. An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 deer pass through the narrow bottleneck at the Fremont Lake outflow, according to a 2016 assessment of the migration path.”

‘The “desired future conditions” — a U.S. Forest Service equivalent for zoning — for where the trail would have gone are “developed and administrative sites” and “special use/recreation.” Those classifications would have allowed for new trails, and the Bridger-Teton’s forest plan easily predates the discovery of the migration route, which wasn’t until 2013. Outside of those processes, the forest sought input before proceeding with the plans.”

It’s great that the project decision is considering this new information and the new state designation.  I hope the Forest also recognizes the implications for any future projects in this area where it looks like they have decided that the desired condition is now something else.  The discovery of the migration route should have led to another look at the forest plan desired condition, and a plan amendment if they are deciding that it is no longer appropriate based on this new information.

 

 

 

 

Forest Plan Revision Update

by

Since planning is where this blog started, and is arguably where most of the things discussed here should be addressed and resolved at a national forest level, and is what I did in the Forest Service, I would be remiss if I didn’t provide an occasional status update, especially because three national forest are at key points in their plan revisions (below).  Here is the the summary provided by the Forest Service in March.

Most of the interest going forward is in how the 2012 Planning Rule would be implemented, and there are three national forests that have completed their revisions under that regulation:  Francis Marion, Flathead and El Yunque.  The Flathead has two pending lawsuits.

The Inyo has completed is objection process and the Forest is completing the assignments from the reviewing officer.  Here is the reviewing officer response to the objections.  The wildlife section illustrates what I think is a problem with the objection process – where the reviewing officer identifies a problem there is no follow-up to determine if what a forest says or does actually fixes the problem; even though the record is inadequate, the regional forester basically trusts the forest supervisor.  Examples:

Finding: The ROD states that the plan components meet the diversity requirement, but it does
not appear to meet the planning rule requirement to provide an explanation of how the plan
meets the diversity requirements of 36 CFR § 219.9.

Instruction: Include a summary in the ROD that provides an explanation of how the plan
components meet the diversity requirements.

What if the explanation reveals that the plan doesn’t actually meet the diversity requirements?

Finding: The record lacks scientific rationale for why 3 years of surveys are sufficient to determine that PACs are no longer occupied (SPEC-CSO-GDL 02).

Instruction: Clarify the record related to removing PACs.

Finding: Much of the management direction from the lengthy Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land Management Plan Amendment related to sage grouse are reflected in the Revised Inyo Plan, but several standards and guidelines were not brought forward into the Revised Plan. While the record states that the revised plan is consistent with the Humboldt-Toiyabe Amendment regarding sage grouse, some Humboldt-Toiyabe Amendment plan components were not included, and there is a lack of rationale for which plan components were and were not included.

Instruction: Clarify in the record how the sage grouse related plan components from the Humboldt-Toiyabe Amendment were incorporated, or were not incorporated, and why.

What if the rationale is arbitrary, and the plan components are wrong?

Sometimes the Forest could actually change a decision, with apparently no recourse for the public but to sue:

Finding: It is not clear in the project record why the Destination Recreation Area is exempt from the California Spotted Owl plan components.

Instruction: Unless a clear rationale can be provided, remove the Destination Recreation Area exemption language.

And what if a “clear rationale” is not provided in the other examples where the instructions were to “clarify the record?”

And then there’s this “suggestion for the responsible official.”  “Consider including the list of species of conservation concern in the plan.”  Since the monitoring plan program must be explicitly tied to SCC (36 CFR §219.12(a)(5)(iv)), how could the plan not mention the relevant species?

The next forest expected to complete its revision is the Rio Grande.  It has released its final EIS and draft ROD and is in its 60-day objection period.  Here’s some more about that.

The plan also altered the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment to include the dead tree habitat. “The original amendment only included green, healthy forest habitat, so we modified it to include our dead tree habitat which allowed for better management strategies,” said Perez.

The “original amendment” was also based on the best available scientific information about lynx and their habitat.

The Sierra and Sequoia national forests have issued a revised draft EIS and its public comment period closes September 26.  Maybe they have addressed the “burning” issues we’ve discussed on this blog?

 

When should national forest old growth be logged?

by

Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest, North Carolina

 

Old growth logging projects on national forests are almost sure to generate objections, but most likely they are in an area that was “allocated” to timber production in the forest plan.  (Otherwise timber harvest would have to be for non-timber reasons, and there aren’t many of those to log old growth.)  This thoughtful article examines the issue on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest as it continues to develop its forest plan revision.

Williams and other conservationists argue that this stand of older trees and others like it are exceptional and should be conserved. The Forest Service currently says they are not sufficiently exceptional to be conserved.

If a forest plan has been revised under the 2012 Planning Rule, we would know how much old growth is needed for ecological integrity, and old growth could be logged where there is “enough” old growth on a forest based on its natural range of variation (and where not prohibited by the forest plan).  But there are only two plans completed under these requirements.  Both have desired conditions based on what they determined to be the NRV (which is not an easy thing to do because of lack of reliable historical records).  The Flathead also prohibits destruction of old growth characteristics and limits removal of old trees to certain circumstances.  The Francis Marion includes this standard:

S37. Stands meeting the criteria for old growth as defined in the Region 8 old growth Guidance will be identified during project level analyses. Consider the contribution of existing old growth communities to the future network of small and medium-sized areas of old growth conditions including the full diversity of ecosystems across the landscape.

That is similar to the current Nantahala-Pisgah forest plan:

Steverson Moffat, the National Environmental Policy Act planning team leader of the Nantahala National Forest, told CPP that the current Pisgah-Nantahala national forest land and resource management plan requires that the forest designate large, medium and small patches of old growth to form a network that represents landscapes found in the Southern Appalachians that are well dispersed and interconnected.

A big problem with this approach is that this strategic and programmatic “designation” (of a “future network”) would probably occur outside of the forest planning process and maybe out of the public eye (unless the forest plan is amended each time it occurs).  And unless a “network” has been fully described, there is no way to tell whether a particular proposed project area is necessary to comply with the forest plan.  Which leads to that debate on a project-by-project basis, like we have here on the Nantahala-Pisgah.

On a 26-acre stand near Brushy Mountain slated for harvest, the Forest Service said the site meets the minimal operational definition for old growth defined in a Forest Service document known as the Region 8 Old Growth Guide. Even so, the stand won’t be protected since it “is already well-represented and protected in existing old-growth designations.”

How were those “designations” made?  When that occurred, did the public know that it would mean these other areas would be subject to future logging, and did they have an opportunity to object then?

“Only one-half of 1 percent of the forest is old growth in the Southeast,” Buzz Williams of the Chattooga Conservancy told Carolina Public Press. “That is the reason within itself to leave it alone.”

“There is not a need to create (early successional habitat) right on top of old growth.”

The Forest Service disagreed. In an official response to the objections, the Forest Service wrote that while the Forest Service “should provide and restore old growth on the landscape,” this spot and others within the project are either not old growth or unique enough to protect.

I get that old growth should be allowed to “move” across a landscape over time, but that timeframe is even slower than the one for forest planning (note: humor).  There would be little administrative risk in designating which areas would be preserved in a forest plan and which would not (subject to amendments in cases where designated areas are destroyed by natural events).  Better yet, except on national forests that have an abundance of existing old growth (where would this be?), require an ecological reason to log old trees.

This is a debate that should be settled in forest plan revisions not passed on for objections to future projects.  An attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center agrees:

“The question of protecting old-growth forests is very much a planning-based question — in terms of the big picture of the management of the National Forest and restoring its ecological integrity,” Burnette said.

“In light of broad-based community support for protecting old growth, it’s perplexing that the (Forest Service) would want to rush out ahead of the process during a time when the question of protecting old-growth forests in the future is being considered in the revision of the forest plan.”

The mysterious disappearance of sensitive species – Flathead plan revision example

by

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

The Forest Service created through its directives (FSM 2670) a program to manage sensitive species, which it defined as species “identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern.” Sensitive species “must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for federal listing.” Up until now, forest plans had to include direction for sensitive species “to ensure viable populations throughout their geographic ranges.” In addition, all plans and projects required a biological evaluation (BE) for each sensitive species “to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability … or contribute to trends toward Federal listing.” The BE became an important tool for biologists to use at the project level.

The 2012 Planning Rule requires identification of Species of Conservation Concern (SCC). They are defined as those for which “the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.” The plan must maintain viable populations of these species, but there are no requirements for future projects to address them; compliance with forest plan requirements for SCCs is presumed to meet the needs of these species. This elevates the importance of plan components for these species.

The Forest Service issued an internal letter to regional foresters on June 6, 2016 explaining that it would phase out the sensitive species designation. It recognized that, “As noted in the preamble to the 2012 planning rule, “[Regional Forester Sensitive Species] are…similar to species of conservation concern.”   It also stated that, “Applying both systems on the same administrative unit would be redundant.” Consequently, “Once a revised plan is in effect, the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list no longer applies to that unit.” The letter acknowledges that a biological evaluation must still be prepared for a revised forest plan. (Interestingly, the letter had only a planning file code, so it did not necessarily go to biologists.)

The Forest Service is thus implementing a substantial change in wildlife policy, with no prior public involvement, through individual forest plan revisions. This should mean that the forest planning process would include a clear explanation for the public that some species are no longer sensitive, and that no species will be evaluated for future projects (outside of any effects analysis NEPA might require). In particular, there needs to be a reasoned explanation of what facts have changed for those species where viability was a concern, but isn’t any more. The forest plan EIS must also consider the effects on sensitive species of removing the existing requirements to evaluate and maintain their viability at the project level (in comparison to the no-action alternative).

Instead, the Flathead has mostly hidden any information about sensitive species. Most existing sensitive species (17 animal species) are not designated as SCC (3 animal species), but there is no list of sensitive species in any of the Forest documents (though they can be identified from a list of all species included in an EIS appendix). There is no biological evaluation as required by the Forest Service Manual and the 2016 letter. There is a summary of “biological determinations” for sensitive species, but it is not listed among the planning documents on the website. It cites the forest plan EIS as the basis for its one- or two-sentence summaries. The EIS does not mention sensitive species at all, but it includes effects analysis for species that are/were sensitive.

While it is therefore possible to find some information on sensitive species, the Forest does not explain the significant implications of that information. It does not disclose the changes in scientific information that provide the rationale for declassifying them as at-risk species, and it does not explain how the sensitive species policy changes will affect future management of this Forest. These seem like fatal (arbitrary) omissions.