Planning Rule Development Process

Forest Service “Takes Control” or “Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests”

by

This one from the Huffington Post

In its first sentence this article asserts that the point of the planning rule was to “take more control over the forests”; “hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging”.

I would assert that that we are doing just fine, thank you, with the natural process of coevolution of litigation and agency response. I would argue that the reason for a new rule is:

That the case law around the 1982 rule has become obtuse and unworkable; that timber is no longer a big deal and should be treated as such; that a new rule should take into account the success of place- based collaboration and advisory committees; form a structure for adaptive management; and be cognizant that with the plethora of assessments (state assessments, vulnerability assessments, species assessments) that there is little that is going unassessed and that assessments have a shelf-life. I also agree with Andy that we have plenty of other layers of decisions now, such as oil and gas leasing decisions and travel management, that a forest plan no longer needs to be the comprehensive as it used to be. Monitoring and changing through a formal power-sharing arrangement with an advisory committee of some kind would be so much more 21st century.

As regular readers know, I am a biologist by education and most of my career, and so this quote was interesting:

“This flies in the face of the principal that has been in place, that the Forest Service’s job is to keep common species common,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

If a species is common, it is hard for me to imagine that any project that crosses my desk, or the sum of all these projects, could actually have an impact.

Forest Service Revising Rules In Bid For More Control

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging as well as ecosystem restoration, the U.S. Forest Service said Thursday it was revising its planning rules to take more control over national forests and find more common ground between industry and conservation groups.

The old rules, dating back to the Reagan administration, designated certain animal species that must be protected to assure ecosystems are healthy. However, the system became the basis of numerous lawsuits that sharply cut back logging to protect habitat for fish and wildlife.

The new rules call for monitoring a broader range of species, including plants, while giving forest supervisors greater discretion to decide what science to apply and which species to protect, depending on local conditions.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said from Washington, D.C., that it’s in everyone’s best interest to have forests that stay healthy amid climate change and economic demands.

“Rather than responding to the political pressure of the time, it would be much better to say to the scientists, ‘What is the best way to make this forest the most resilient it can be,'” Vilsack told The Associated Press.

The conservation group that forced the revision by persuading a federal judge to throw out the last one said the proposal represents a dangerous rollback of mandatory protections and gives too much discretion to forest supervisors.

“This flies in the face of the principal that has been in place, that the Forest Service’s job is to keep common species common,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

The 155 national forests and grasslands managed by the agency cover 193 million acres in 42 states and Puerto Rico. Balance between industry and conservation in those areas has been tough to find since the existing rules went into effect in 1982.

One revision of the rules by the Clinton administration and two by the Bush administration were thrown out by federal courts.

Here’s a piece from

Feds Propose Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests

Feds Propose Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests

With climate change posing new threats—more frequent forest fires, for example, and plagues of tree-killing beetles—the U.S. Forest Service is proposing to change the way it makes its management plans for national forests. The goal is to dramatically speed up the 5- to 8-year process, which is currently governed by a 1982 rule that officials describe as expensive and inefficient. The proposed draft, released yesterday, emphasizes the use of scientific evidence in creating management plans, as well as restoring forests so that they are resilient to pests and other stresses. “It’s very important that we get this [natural] system into a healthy state as quickly as possible,” says forest ecologist William Wallace Covington of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, who thinks the changes would be a positive step.

Not all environmental groups agree. Some do not like the latitude given to local supervisors of forests. But Covington says what’s important is allowing supervisors to take actions, such as thinning forests, that will make the overall habitat more healthy. The Forest Service is taking public comments for 90 days.

More News Stories on the Planning Rule

by

Here’s one from the Washington Post.

Here’s one from the Denver Post.

New federal management plan focuses on forest health

Obama administration officials on Thursday unveiled a sweeping new framework for managing national forests, saying “multiple uses” can continue but the priority must be improving forest health and resilience.

In Colorado, for example, they want fewer forests dominated by same-species, same-age trees. These are more vulnerable to the beetles that in recent years have ravaged more than 4 million acres in the Rocky Mountain region. The officials say they are aiming for greater diversity.

The nationwide “planning rules” announced by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack replace rules developed 30 years ago that became cumbersome as forest managers tried to balance extractive industry interests with recreation and protection of water resources.

“This is a recognition that all of these uses are important,” Vilsack said in a conference call with reporters.

Forest managers now must figure out “how they can work together, not only to improve the resilience and health of the forests but the economies of the communities that surround the forests,” he said.

Conservationists were scrutinizing a 97-page draft document that lays out the administration’s approach.

Forest Service overseers seem to be “heading in the right direction,” said Mike Francis, director of forest programs for the Wilderness Society, a national advocacy group. “We are encouraged.”

Some are concerned that the national rules leave too much discretion in the hands of regional bureaucrats. The Wilderness Society will be working “to set some definitive standards that would lock in the direction they are going,” Francis said.

U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, a Democrat whose Colorado district includes forest land between Boulder and Aspen, said the new rules provide a better framework for local forest management planning. “Each individual forest will need to make informed and sometimes hard decisions,” he said.

The new planning rules guide the regulation of all activities on 193 million acres across 44 states, divided into 155 forest and grassland management units.

U.S. Forest Service land serves as the source of drinking water for 124 million Americans, including residents of Denver and other cities. Forests also are crucial for wildlife.

But pressures from climate change and energy development have presented challenges.

“Our natural ecosystems are only going to provide for us to the extent that they are healthy. National forest management, more than anything else, determines whether our forests are healthy,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group that successfully sued the Bush administration for failing to protect forests as required.

Courts ruled against the Bush administration’s approach. Obama administration officials decided not to appeal those rulings, which pleased environmental groups. Over the past two years, Obama officials have been developing their own rules.

In Colorado, the Forest Service owns 11.3 million acres, about 47 percent of the federally managed land that covers much of the western half of the state.

Rapidly growing communities are encroaching on those forests. This complicates the job of regional foresters as they develop local management plans that protect wildlife and water.

It’s interesting to compare the perspectives and the people quoted, given in that amount of time since posted it is difficult to assimilate exactly what it all means.

Does anyone know what is meant by:

Some are concerned that the national rules leave too much discretion in the hands of regional bureaucrats. The Wilderness Society will be working “to set some definitive standards that would lock in the direction they are going,” Francis said.

Just so it’s clear, as a “regional bureaucrat”, I would be thrilled to get more discretion.

And, in the Washington Post story

“They give too much discretion to individual forest supervisors” without specific directions, said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. “We don’t know that they’re going to protect species or not. There is no question that this is a rollback to required protection to wildlife habitat.”

Planning rules are pretty complicated. In the spirit of the Common Interest, I propose a contest for a five page briefing paper that most fairly and accurately compares the 1982 and proposed Rules (since “rolling back” seems a characterization in these stories). This might be a good class project. All entries will be posted on the blog and judging will be done by a “fair and balanced” panel. Let’s think about a suitable prize, and due date is March 11- a month from now to be able to share publicly to help inform public comment. The contest is open to individuals and groups.

Proposed Planning Rule Available!

by

Just when we were running out of things to talk about. ;)..

HERE.

Found this summary on the AFS website:

USDA Forest Service Unveils Proposed Planning Rule to Provide Science-Based Framework to Support Healthy Forests and Communities
Posted on February 10, 2011 by grassam
USDA Forest Service Unveils Proposed Planning Rule to Provide Science-Based Framework to Support Healthy Forests and Communities

Forest Service Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Rule

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2011 – The USDA Forest Service unveiled its proposed Forest Planning Rule today which would establish a new national framework to develop land management plans that protect water and wildlife and promote vibrant communities.

Forest Service land management plans guide management activities on the 155 National Forests and 20 Grasslands in the National Forest System. The proposed planning rule provides a collaborative and science-based framework for creating land management plans that would support ecological sustainability and contribute to rural job opportunities. The proposed rule includes new provisions to guide forest and watershed restoration and resilience, habitat protection, sustainable recreation, and management for multiple uses of the National Forest System, including timber.

“This proposed planning rule seeks to conserve our forests for the benefit of water, wildlife, recreation and the economic vitality of our rural communities,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The proposed rule will provide the tools to the Forest Service to make our forests more resilient to many threats, including pests, catastrophic fire and climate change. Healthy forests and economically strong rural communities form a solid foundation as we work to win the future for the next generation.”

Publication of the proposed planning rule in the Federal Register will kick off a 90-day public comment period, ending May 16. The Forest Service will use comments to develop a final rule. To encourage public engagement, the Forest Service is hosting an open forum to discuss the proposed rule on March 10, 2011 in Washington, D.C. The meeting will be Web cast to allow for national participation, and there will be additional public forums held throughout the country. The proposed rule, meeting information, and additional information can be found at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

Highlights of the proposed planning rule include:

■A more effective and efficient framework that would allow adaptive land management planning in the face of climate change and other stressors.
■Increased requirements for public involvement and collaboration throughout all stages of land management planning.
■Improved ability to respond to climate change and other stressors through provisions to restore and maintain healthy and resilient ecosystems.
■Increased protections for water resources and watersheds.
■More effective and proactive requirements to provide for diverse native plant and animal species.
■Provisions to guide the contributions of a National Forest or National Grassland to social and economic sustainability.
■Updated provisions for sustainable land, water and air-based recreation.
■Requirements to provide for integrated resource management of a range of multiple uses and values including outdoor recreation, range, timber, water, wildlife, wilderness, energy, mining, and ecosystem services.
■New requirements for a local and landscape-scale monitoring program that are based on the latest science.
“This proposed planning rule is the outcome of an open and transparent development process,” said Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman. “It’s a positive framework that will allow the Forest Service to more effectively restore our natural resources, support the economy, andadapt to changing conditions.”

The proposed rule would update planning procedures that have been in place since 1982, creating a modern planning process that reflects the latest science and knowledge of how to create and implement effective land management plans.

“The Forest Service has been a steward of American lands for more than a century, and this proposed planning rule will build on that tradition,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “We value the thoughtful input we’ve received in the development of this proposed rule, and we look forward to continuing collaboration to construct an adaptive management framework for the people’s forests and grasslands, based on sound science and reflecting public values.”

The proposed rule is the product of the most participatory planning rule development process in Forest Service history. To develop the proposed rule, the Forest Service held over 40 public meetings and roundtables across the country that drew more than 3,000 participants, and hosted a blog to engage the public. Additionally, the Forest Service reviewed more than 26,000 comments on the notice of intent to issue a new planning rule.

The USDA Forest Service manages 193 million acres of forests and grasslands across the country. Drinking water for approximately one in five Americans comes from the National Forest System. American forests, including those in the National Forest System, also capture and store enough carbon every year to offset 11 percent of the nation’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, hundreds of millions of Americans visit National Forests and Grasslands annually, with 98 percent of these lands offering free access. More information is available at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

###

Here’s a link to an AP story with a title “Forest Service to stress science over politics”
that says, among other things.

–

Hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging as well as ecosystem restoration, the U.S. Forest Service said Thursday it was revising its planning rules to find common ground between industry and conservation groups to avoid lawsuits that stall projects.

Planning rules are complicated for sure, but this story is not at all clear on what planning rules or plans are all about.

Defenders’ Planning Checklist

by

Here’s a new report from Defenders of Wildlife providing a checklist for evaluating the impending 2011 forest planning rule: Defenders’ Planning Checklist in PDF. 

This is sure to be the first of several upcoming evaluations and critiques, and we’ll post those here as well. 

I don’t see any big surprises here.  The group is obviously focused on a mandatory species viability standard, but it also calls for an “external factors” exception to the standard when necessary, such as when activities on private land threaten a species on an adjacent national forest.  This is something that Sharon has written about on the blog.  Also included in this section is a call for a “non-discretionary monitoring program to ensure that habitat is supporting viable populations.”

Lots more of course.  Including a section, close to my heart, calling for a strong framework of national standards, guidelines, and objectives.

And here’s the report on the Defenders’ blog:  http://experts.defendersblog.org/2011/02/obama%E2%80%99s-forest-rule-a-checklist-for-success-from-defenders-of-wildlife/

Recreation and the Planning Rule- New West Story

by

Is Recreation in the Rockies Becoming a Bigger Forest Service Priority?
Ski resorts, outfitters and others in the recreation industry want the U.S. Forest Service to think about outdoor sports enthusiasts in the same way they think about species and habitat. Will the Forest Service listen? by Steve Bunk

This story is a description of the planning rule development and the interaction with people interested in recreation.
Well worth a read. Here’s a quote.

Seven leaders of the groups met with Tidwell later that month, including Lyle Laverty, CEO of the National Association of Gateway Communities, headquartered in Denver. Laverty’s job history includes Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, director of Colorado State Parks, and associate deputy chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

He said the letter to Tidwell and the subsequent meeting with him were sparked by a Forest Service document issued during last year’s development of the planning rule. Addressing input received by the agency concerning the new rule, the document said, “Many noted that the Forest Service does not have much ability to influence economies, and should focus instead on the land management business it knows.”

“That stimulated a lot of angst,” said Laverty. During about 38 years working for the Forest Service, he never had heard anyone in the agency question its importance in influencing economies, he said.
For years, a notion has been brewing in the agency that it should leave the planning for recreational uses of national forests up to local and regional officials, Laverty said. “My personal sense is that this didn’t just happen. It’s a trend we’ve observed, starting back in the early 1990s.”

Derrick Crandall, president of the Washington, D.C.-based American Recreation Coalition (ARC), which organized the letter to Tidwell, suggested that other aspects of Forest Service work are trendier than planning for recreation. Global planning issues, such as climate change and biodiversity, “have a lot of cachet within the beltway circle,” he said.
Recreation is a key use of national forests under various federal laws, but the agency’s written materials that outlined the core concepts of the upcoming plan did not include it, he noted. “We did find it very serious that the number one benefit of national forests—camping, hiking, fishing, skiing, and other recreational activities—wasn’t even represented.”
Michael Berry, president of the National Ski Areas Association, headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, which is the leading trade group for ski resort owners and operators, also attended the meeting with Tidwell.

“We all know that recreation, particularly in the 11 western states … plays a huge part in economies,” he said. “The issue of the agency’s ability to manage recreation is a topic that we want to continue to ensure will be addressed.”
The lobby’s emphasis on that topic bore further fruit last November, when 41 House of Representatives members wrote to Tidwell in support of recreational opportunities in national forests, including Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Denny Rehberg of Montana, Mike Coffman of Colorado and Mike Simpson of Idaho. Simpson is chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Committee, which overseas Forest Service funding.

“We were very interested to see the dramatic interest of the congressmen in this issue, and we think that’s probably been very helpful, also,” Crandall said.

In a recently updated list of core concepts for the planning rule, recreation now holds equal place with four other concepts: people and the environment, climate change, watershed health, and resilience, the latter of which is defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure.”
In terms of inviting public input, the process of developing the new planning rule has been impressive. More than 40 public meetings were held in 2010, and more than 26,000 written comments were received, plus many informal comments on the agency website devoted to the rule.

Even so, Laverty thinks that a deeper change might have been instigated by the recreational lobby’s involvement in developing the new planning rule. He said the traditional model of collaboration with interest groups is shaped like a wheel, with the Forest Service at the hub. That process involves one-on-one dealings between the agency and each interest group, with the Forest Service reviewing comments received.

The new model, which he and others suggested to Tidwell, is a circle with a number of nodes on it, one of which is the Forest Service. The others include representatives of county and city governments, wildlife management, ATV use, hunting, and numerous other special interest groups. Final decision-making power still resides with the Forest Service, but all the nodes interact with each other.

“It’s a table of trust,” Laverty said. “You have to take off your stripes and sleeves and leave your gun at the door when you come to the table.”

In the comments, Matthew Koehler linked to a couple of articles. I thought this one from 1997 was particularly interesting. It’s about Lyle coming to Denver to be Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region.

Outdoor enthusiasts like Laverty used to be seen as friends of the environment, but conservation groups increasingly contend that the growing demand for outdoor recreation is wreaking havoc on national forests. They argue that ski-resort construction, off-road vehicles and mountain bikers not only drive reclusive animals out of their natural habitats, but also create trails that irreversibly damage soil and plants. “There’s no shortage of favor for the Forest Service from ski resorts and the like,” says Rocky Smith of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “Sometimes it seems like the Forest Service is acting as an agent for the ski areas, especially since the Forest Service has been promoting this sort of industrial-strength recreation.”

Colorado environmentalists are already firing warning shots at Laverty, sending letters of concern and other documents to his D.C. office.

“I don’t have a problem with ski resorts or recreational trails,” says Jasper Carlton, “but we’re afraid that Laverty is going to allow all-out development and the forests won’t tolerate it.”

McClellan points to the impact caused by the 100,000 mountain bikers she estimates visited Vail last summer.

“The mountain bike is dangerous,” she says, “because of its potential to get people further into undisturbed backcountry–the last refuge for reclusive species like the lynx and wolverine. Where a hiker can maybe get ten miles into the backcountry, a biker can get forty and an off-road vehicle one hundred. When you throw in skiing, the result is a year-round gridlock of recreation, which is a greater threat to our lands than logging ever was. Twenty years from now, forests harvested for timber will have grown back, but a trail will always be there.

“If this kind of proliferation continues, which it looks like it will when Laverty gets out here, I predict that we’ll have uniform saturation [of Forest Service land] within two decades.”

It’s 14 years out.. I wonder how we are doing with the “saturation” idea?

Holiday Wishes for a New Planning Rule

by

Twelve environmental groups have started an ad campaign calling for a new Forest Service planning rule “to protect all creatures great and small.”  A press release from the Pew Environment Group and 11 other organizations mentions that 10,000 post cards and a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture will advocate that the planning rule considers strong standards for water quality and wildlife protection, and a commitment to scientific review.

The draft or proposed planning rule is in the administrative clearance process in the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget.  The Forest Service’s planning rule blog explains that the clearance draft’s proposed treatment of species diversity has been changed from the concepts presented at the last public meeting on the rule in July.

House Members Weigh In On Treatment of Recreation in Planning Rule

by

Is Forest Service planning becoming so complex that analysis paralysis is causing delays in decisions affecting outdoor recreation?  The importance of recreation and public access in National Forests continues to draw attention as the Forest Service attempts to move a proposed forest planning rule through the government clearance process.  Earlier this week, the planning team announced a delay in the release of a draft rule.  Throughout the rule development process, recreation interests have complained about apparent biases in draft planning material toward other multiple uses.   In some ways, the planning rule writing team hadn’t anticipated this response by initially failing to include outdoor recreation as an issue to be addressed during initial scoping.

Now Congress is entering the discussion.  In a letter sent to the Forest Service Chief last Thursday, 41 House members asked that a new planning rule “not impose new burdensome regulations or create new obstacles that could ultimately reduce recreational opportunities on these lands”.  The House members are led by Kevin McCarthy of California and Rob Bishop of Utah.  Most of the 41 are Republicans such as Denny Rehberg of Montana, mentioned earlier on this blog, but also include some Democrats like Dan Boren of Oklahoma.

The letter echoes earlier concerns about the vague generalities about ecological concepts on the planning rule website, and relates to discussions earlier on this blog about encumbering an already broken planning process.  “These are broad concepts and difficult to define.  Because stakeholders may be unable to agree on definitions, this could hamper individual forest supervisors’ ability to develop land management plans that include robust and diverse access and recreation provisions.  Other terms such as ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘stressors’ throughout the other concept drafts are also not adequately defined, which could overwhelm local land managers with the need to do exhaustive research, making the already lengthy and complicated planning process more complex and time consuming – and this impacts not just recreation proposals.  These inadequately defined terms could lead to endless litigation of the rule itself or individual USFS land management plans.  In essence, we could have analysis paralysis that denies the public access and the ability to recreate in their national forests.”

Generally, Forest Plans in the past have assumed that lands are suitable for any activity unless expressely listed as “not suitable.”  The Forest Service has also assumed that Forest Plans are generally aspirational and goal oriented and not immediately enforceable until additional site-specific NEPA documentation is completed and a travel order is issued.  However, a sixth circuit decision about the Huron-Manistee Forest Plan may indicate that courts may be changing this view, and that Forest Plans can and should restrict activities such as snowmobiling and hunting.

Forest planning under the Multiple-Use concept has never been easy, and the recreation debate is perhaps the new issue of the day.  As Martin Nie said on his earlier post on this blog: ”and so here we are, closing in on 2011, and we continue to ask about the purpose of planning, the adequacy of NFMA, and the meaning and future of multiple use.”

Draft Forest Service Planning Rule Delayed

by

The release of a draft Forest Service planning rule has been delayed until early 2011, according to an announcement today on the planning rule website.  Originally, a draft rule and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement were targeted for December with a final in November 2011.  A planning rule is required by the 1976 National Forest Management Act.

Meanwhile, 21 Forest Plans are being revised using the transition provisions of the existing rule, originally finalized in 2000 and republished in December 2009, which allow continued use of the procedures of a 1982 rule.

Forest Plans May be More Meaningful after Sixth Circuit Decision

by

Are Forest Service Land Management Plans themselves a final decision about the location of activities such as snowmobiling and hunting, or are they merely guidance for when decisions are really made at a project level or subsequent travel management decision? 

That question has been central to controversies about new Forest Service planning rules that were developed in 2005 and 2008, and relevant to the team now writing a new planning rule.  The 2005/2008 planning rules were based on the concept that plans are merely aspirational and not inherently enforceable, citing the 1998 Supreme Court Ohio Forestry decision on timber harvest projections in the Wayne Forest Plan.  The Forest Service used the Supreme Court decision in its logic for the 2005 rule, explaining that plans do not need to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement, because no specific decisions are being made and because environmental documentation will be completed as timber projects are proposed.  It also led to the idea that the planning process itself could be simpler, because forest plans don’t make site-specific decisions.

A Sixth Circuit decision on Wednesday could lead to a different view of the nature of a Forest Plan.  The decision on the Huron-Manistee Forest Plan ruled against the Forest Service in favor of Kurt Jay Meister, an attorney representing himself.  The Court ruled that Forest Plans under the existing 1982 rule (under 2000 rule transition provisions) make meaningful recreation decisions.  Citing inadequacies in the analysis of the noise impacts of snowmobiling and hunting on semi-primitive recreational experiences,  the Forest Service has been given 90 days to correct the deficiencies of the Huron-Manistee Plan.

The Sixth Circuit Court noted the difference between recreational activities in a Forest Plan and timber activities mentioned in the earlier Supreme Court decision:

“But the (Supreme) Court observed that the Plan itself “does not give anyone a legal right to cut trees, nor does it abolish anyone’s legal authority to object to trees being cut.”  To the contrary, additional agency action – namely, issuance of a site-specific permit – was required before anyone could engage in the logging that the Sierra Club said would harm its interests.  Thus, the Court held, the plan had not yet “inflict[ed] significant practical harm upon the interests that the Sierra Club advance[d].  Hence the case was not ripe.  Meister’s case is different.  Unlike logging, the activities about which Meister complains – gun hunting and snowmobile use – do not require further action by the Service before they can occur.  To the contrary, they have in fact occurred ever since the Plan’s issuance, with the resultant harms that Meister now alleges.  Thus, the Plan itself has harmed him in concrete ways.  His claims are ripe.”

Regarding travel management, the Circuit said that the 1982 regulations “imposed the bulk of its obligations at the (forest) planning stage; and one such obligation, as we read the regulation, is to determine whether certain clases of areas and trails ought to be altogether off-limits to off-road vehicle use.  Meister says that one such class are trails that the Service itself admits are “in or near” semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. That claim is properly presented at the Plan level.”

Regarding hunting, the court rejected a Forest Service argument that it is solely controlled by the State.  Instead, the court said that both the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and Forest Service directives allow the Forest Service to limit hunting when it is inconsistent with direction in forest plans such as the establishment of semi-primitive non-motorized areas.

This case underscores how the 1982 planning rule is continually being interpreted by the courts.  In the development of the new planning rule, it will be important to clearly spell out what analysis will be expected in the forest planning process.  Elsewhere on this blog, there have been discussions about the importance of addressing recreation in the planning process, and how recreation isn’t being taken seriously.  However, the planning process needs to be simplified and must be more concise.  The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) does not require the planning rule to direct zoning of recreational uses in a Forest Plan.  If recreation is addressed in the new planning rule, hopefully the requirements will be clearly laid out and are achievable.

Recreation Groups Want Additional Meetings on the Proposed Planning Rule

by

A coalition of 72 recreation groups sent a letter to the Forest Service Chief last week about recreation interests not being heard by the proposed planning rule writing team and their comments not being reflected in summary documents on the planning rule website.  The coalition of primarily hunting, fishing, and off-road vehicle interests includes such groups as the National Rifle Association, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the National Association of Forest Service Retirees. 

The groups explain that “we do not assert that outdoor recreation is, or should be, a dominant use of all national forest lands.  But it is important and relevant to note that the Congress specifically listed outdoor recreation first in the identified mandated management responsibilities of the Forest Service.  Also noteworthy is the fact that assessments of the economic contributions of the national forests since 1992 have consistently identified outdoor recreation as the leading national economic benefit of the forests.”

The groups disagreed with a conclusion in the Fourth Planning Rule Roundtable summary that the Forest Service does not really have much ability to intentionally influence local economies, but should focus instead on the land management business it knows.  “We strongly disagree with both contentions.  Decisions regarding use of national forests, and especially decisions regarding kinds and levels of recreational uses, clearly and dramatically shape the economic health of nearby communities.  And this impact must be reflected in Forest Service planning.  There is no option under NEPA to abrogate this responsibility.  If the expertise resident within the Forest Service is incapable of meeting this responsibility, it must be found and included.  By reducing recreation opportunities or by constraining or prohibiting new recreational uses – like the initial opposition of the agency to geocaching – without considering ways to develop and apply new management protocols, the agency compromises the viability of hundreds of communities near national forests.”

“We are greatly concerned by the lack of emphasis placed upon recreation in the documents associated with the proposed new Planning Rule and will not support a final rule that fails to correct this flaw.  We intend to deliver this assessment to the public and to those representing the public if no commitment to change is made by the agency.”

The groups are asking for a meeting with the Chief, and a formal working session with the planning rule team to include provisions in the rule that requires Forest Plans to actively search out strategies to provide for and manage diverse public recreation uses.