Planning

Forest Supervisor speaks out on behalf of public lands

by

Kudos to the Forest Supervisor on the Cleveland National Forest for engaging in the local planning process and pointing out the threats to the national forest of increased housing density on its borders.  This is one way the Forest Service can attempt to both protect its resources and manage its costs, but it’s not something I’ve seen very often.  (In fact, I once saw a forest supervisor retract similar comments for political reasons.)

The Forest Conservation Initiative was a voter-approved initiative which required that private lands within the Cleveland National Forest in San Diego County have a minimum lot size of 40 acres. The FCI was originally approved in 1993 and expired in 2010.  An unusual history maybe, but it’s not unusual for local governments to allow increased development density (by either re-zoning or lack of zoning).  The responsibility of the Forest Service to speak up for our national resources exists regardless.

Natural amenities, “the creative class” and economic success

by

This map got my attention because of the disproportionate amount of “green” in the rural intermountain west.  In this case it means counties have a disproportionately high number of employees in jobs like management, finance, technology, engineering, science, sales, entertainment and non-primary education (and of course lawyering).

“The creative-class thesis holds that communities that attract and retain more workers who are in creative occupations will fare better in today’s economy.” 

From the background paper linked to this article:

“Richard Florida’s Rise of the Creative Class makes a compelling argument that urban development now depends on novel combinations of knowledge and ideas, that certain occupations specialize in this task, that people in these occupations are drawn to areas providing a high quality of life, and that the essential development strategy is to create an environment that attracts and retains these workers. While developed with urban areas in mind, this thesis may be particularly relevant in rural areas, which lose much of their young talent as high school graduates leave for college, the armed forces, or “city lights.”  Our analysis of recent development in rural U.S. counties, which focuses on natural amenities (for which ERS has also computed county-level scores) as quality-of-life indicators, supports the creative class thesis.”

So, perceived natural amenities attract creative workers who improve local economies.  With a caveat that “growth and success among creative-class workers doesn’t necessarily extend economic benefits to other parts of the economy, such as blue-collar and service workers, at least in metro areas.”  (All wages go up, but housing costs go up more.)

So maybe all this is saying is to get the right kind of education so you can do well and live in a nice place, but it might also paint a promising picture for these rural “green” counties.

 

Talkfest about “Large Wildland Fires”

by

This conference is going on this week in Missoula.  With this many events and speakers I would like to think that someone would talk about the legal and administrative framework for making decisions about fire prevention and management on national forest lands.  That would be the National Forest Management Act and land management plans.  Specifically the law’s requirement that “resource plans” (fire plans) and projects (fuel treatments and fire suppression actions) “shall be consistent with the land management plans.”   The new planning rule also requires that development of plan components consider “wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems.”  Someone should maybe be thinking and talking about how revised forest plans should plan for fire (where we want what on a national forest).

Does anyone in the fire profession care about this?  Apparently the ‘counter-culture’ does – Professor Richard Hutto will talk about “It’s Time to Integrate the Ecological Benefits and Necessity of Severe Fire in National Fire and Forest Management Plans.”  There’s also one (1) presentation by Forest Service fire staff that sounds like it could talk about the decision-making process on national forests: “Integrating Fuel Treatments in Land Management Planning and Wildfire Incident Response.”  I hope that someone who knows something about the Forest Service planning process has been involved.

Forest Service ESA/NFMA success story

by

The West Virginia northern flying squirrel was removed from the endangered species list a few years ago, apparently mostly the result an effort to restore red spruce trees in the Monongahela National Forest.  This story doesn’t mention the forest plan, but says that 100,000 acres are being “managed primarily for red spruce.”  Here is what the plan says:

“Management Prescription 4.1 emphasizes the active and passive restoration of spruce and spruce-hardwood communities and the recovery of species of concern found in these communities, a mix of forest products, and management of hardwood communities where spruce is not present or represents only a negligible component of a stand, and research or administrative studies on spruce restoration. On lands determined to be suitable habitat for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, vegetation management initially would be limited to research or administrative studies to determine effective habitat enhancement techniques for the squirrel. After such studies have demonstrated effective techniques, vegetation management to enhance habitat for the squirrel or other TEP species could occur on a larger scale (see FW standard TE61).”

“Objective WF11 – Maintain at least 20,000 acres of mid-late and late successional (>80 years old) spruce forest to provide optimum habitat for West Virginia northern flying squirrel, a Management Indicator Species. The long-term objective is to increase mid-late and late successional spruce forest to at least 40,000 acres.”

According to the de-listing rule:   “Implementation of the amended Appendix A guidelines by the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) effectively abated the main threat to the squirrel (i.e., habitat loss from timber management) throughout the majority of its range, by eliminating adverse impacts on all suitable habitat on the MNF without having to prove WVNFS presence.”

What’s not to like about this as an example of how public land laws can work the way they were intended?  If there’s any easterners more familiar with the back-story, maybe they could share it.

The current interest is related to coverage of the flying squirrel in the April/May issue of The Nature Conservancy Magazine.  Here’s more on red spruce.  

Collaborative objections?

by

This is apparently the first test of the 2012 planning rule objection process for forest plan revisions (though the plans were prepared under the 1982 rule).  On the Kootenai, there were 38 objectors and the same number of ‘interested persons’ (presumably some overlap).  On the Idaho Panhandle, 22 objectors and 94 interested persons.  Someone distilled that to these four topics for discussion and possible resolution at a meeting on each forest:  county coordination, Wild and Scenic Rivers, recommended Wilderness and wilderness study areas, and management indicator species.  Meetings with objectors are optional, but if held must be open to the public (interested persons can participate but the general public can’t).  The reviewing officer, Associate Deputy Chief Jim Pena, attended in person.  What do you think?

Forest Planning: Opening Pandora’s Box?

by

Opened_up_a_Pandora's_box

Surprise, surprise.. forest plans don’t please anyone.. because people disagree about things. or perhaps.. everything. This reminds me of one Region 2 Forest Supervisor who did not want to get engaged in forest planning. He felt the funding never covers the real costs, plus it’s like reopening discussions on everything about a forest.. so that people can refight all the fights that were previously settled one way or another, and people were generally OK with the way the forest is going.

One forest actually had standards that were outdated but felt it was better to amend and fix the problem children in the plan, than to open Pandora’s Box (their plan is probably 40 years or so old now).

Here’s a link to a Rob Chaney story in the Missoulian.

Forest Service Webinar on Planning for Growth and Open Space Conservation

by

USDA Forest Service webinar on community wildfire protection planning

US FOrest ServiceThe USDA Forest Service is currently offering a “Planning for Growth and Open Space Conservation” webinar series for natural resource professionals, land use planners, private landowners and others to learn from experts about issues facing our open lands.

In Session #19: Community Wildfire Protection Planning; three experts discuss how wildfires have become more intense and frequent due to the lack of forest management, fire management, legacy forest policy and climate change. During this session three experts discuss what planners and communities need to know to reduce risks of wildfire.

You can find this webinar on the list here.

Planning in HR 1526 – Guest Post by Jon Haber

by

This recent article on the ‘Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act’ got me to look at the actual bill.

Neither the Administration nor the previous discussion on this blog really addressed the ‘forest planning’ implications of this bill.

Section 505 is titled ‘Clarification of National Forest Management Act of 1976 Authority,’ and it addresses tree marking. Actually, this bill could exempt the entire tree-growing portion of National Forest System completely from NFMA, except for designated wilderness, national monuments and where there are statutory prohibitions.

In Section 103, the Forest Service is required to identify at least one Forest Reserve Revenue Area on each national forest, and such areas must include at least half of the commercial forest lands (there is no upper limit). This is to be done ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law.’ The acreage may never be reduced. This designation must be completed in 60 days, and there is no requirement for public participation.

These areas must then be managed to achieve an ‘annual volume requirement’ of 50% of their sustained yield, which is to be determined as the ‘maximum annual growth potential of the forest.’ This sustained yield does not reflect the needs of any other resources. In comparison, the ASQ in current plans is based on a long-term sustained-yield capacity that reflects many other resource needs, and very few national forests are harvesting anywhere near their ASQ. The 50% figure seems arbitrary and very likely unobtainable (and/or unsustainable) most places without the kind of impacts that NFMA was intended to mitigate.

The bill specifically exempts management of these areas from the NFMA prohibition against choosing clearcutting primarily for economic reasons. It also states, “The Secretary may modify the standards and guidelines contained in the land and resource management plan for the unit of the National Forest System in which the covered forest reserve project will be carried out as necessary to achieve the requirements of this Act.” The management of potentially the majority of the National Forest System would thus effectively be exempt from the direction in existing land management plans, the requirements of the 2012 planning regulations (including collaboration), and NFMA itself (and presumably the Roadless Area Conservation Rule if it interferes with achieving the volume requirement).

For any lands not designated under Section 103 (and over 200,000 acres), Section 402 requires the Forest Service to establish Community Forest Demonstration Areas if requested by an advisory committee appointed by state governors (with only requirements to represent governmental, commercial and recreational interests). “The administration and management of a community forest demonstration area, including implementing actions, shall not be considered Federal action.” Again, NFMA and forest plans would be irrelevant to the selection and management of these areas.

Section 205 allows a state governor to designate ‘high risk areas.’ “Designation of high-risk areas shall be consistent with standards and guidelines contained in the land and resource management plan or land use plan for the unit of Federal land for which the designation is being made, except that the Secretary concerned may modify such standards and guidelines to correspond with a specific high-risk area designation.” The exception swallows the NFMA requirement for consistency with a land management plan.

In sum, this would return national forest planning and management on probably the majority of national forest lands to dominant timber use for economic gain– which is what triggered the National Forest Management Act in 1976. I can see why this rearview mirror approach can’t be taken very seriously.

Jon retired from the Forest Service at the end of 2012 after 32 years as a forest and regional planner in Regions 6 and 1. His background is in forestry and natural resource management and includes a law degree. The last half of his career focused on rewriting the NFMA planning rule, planning for threatened/endangered/sensitive species, and large landscape conservation planning efforts.

Fred Norbury and Law Professors on Planning and the 2005 Rule (video)

by

One of the reasons we started this blog was to increase the net discussions between law school folks and practitioners of planning and NEPA. This is a video recorded in October 2007. The main voices are Fred Norbury, Professors Fred Cheever of the University of Denver Law School and Mark Squillace of University of Colorado Boulder Natural Resources Law Program. Rick Cables, the Regional Forester at the time, weighs in with his experiences and I pop in from time to time (sounding much less articulate than the rest of them).

Cheever starts asking questions first, and then Squillace. You can see Fred Norbury on the video and the only other FS players chiming in were Rick and me (who do not sound alike).

Here’s a link to the video.
Fred starts in with his talk at about 3:40; at about 21:00 are some of the ideas about collaboration. An interesting discussion about how 82 plans had requirements.. some of which were fulfilled and important (standards); others not fulfilled (outputs)around 51:00. it’s fascinating to me as to how it’s important for some things to be “binding” and others not so much; which is still echoed today in the O&C debate.

Because these folks have a policy agenda, of course. Which is OK, as my friend “Eeyore of the Forest Service” says with a sigh..”it’s not good, it’s not bad, it just is.” But it seems to be a very different approach than if you rounded up a group of professors at CSU or OSU or NAU..but if you disagree, please comment.

There is a discussion about the divisiveness of traditional alternatives (related to today’s discussion of collaboration) around 56.

An issue to Professor Squillace was the EIS on the rule (yes, a judge required the FS to write an EIS on implementing different planning processes- as if they would result in different outcomes in a way that could be “meaningfully evaluated” (that’s NEPA, not me). But Fred Norbury says that logically, one could find that planning itself had no impacts on the environment because most of what was planned never happened (that’s right at the end of the video). There is a fundamental difference it seems to me between the language of Ohio Forestry and doing an EIS on a planning regulation.. if plans do not have effects then planning to plan probably doesn’t have an effect. But that’s just me.
So given that so many years have passed; Fred Rick and I are all retired; the 2005 Rule has gone to planning rule heaven; and I am looking at this in a more reflective way.

Here are my thoughts and I welcome discussion.

1) FS workers have traditionally come from natural resource and other schools, hence there is a natural conversation that happens and it seems like that leads to a feeling that “our graduates are generally attempting to do something right and know more than we do about actually doing it.” They tend to have mid-career training where “world as practiced” meets “academic world.” which if structured right, leads to fertile discussions.

2. I have noticed that many fewer FS employees come from law schools. So the trust/competence level must not be there. I don’t think someone from CSU would assume that folks in the FS hadn’t been working with community planners; or that they could think up better ideas about how to plan than people who work with planning every day. It’s almost like “we know more than you do about what you do because of our perspective.” But they are very nice people.. so I think it might be a legal culture thing.

3. These professors and students seem to feel like it’s their job to protect forests from abuse; not to illuminate what the trade-offs are, as say scientists are supposed to (at least when I was trained). My observation is that they tend to see things more politically (good guys vs. bad guys) than I remember in natural resource schools.

One more story.. we were having another discussion with Squillace and students and one of the students said that he thought each plan should start from scratch, and then only add uses as they made their case. I pointed out that that might not be satisfactory to people and their lawyers at say, Vail and Aspen. He said something like “but I go skiing!”. I think it is a good idea for discussions to happen across the academic/practitioner divide. Because the divide can be wide.

Let me know if you have problems.. this is the first one I’ve ever uploaded.

What Good is a Plan Without Implementation?

by

eis photo Photo courtesy of Mac McConnell.

Note from Sharon: I am reposting this as I don’t think it got the attention it deserved yesterday because of a plethora of fire posts. It reminds me of something Chris Iverson once said about the Tongass and Chugach plans..along the lines of “if you’re not doing much (I think he meant in terms of vegetation changing work) you shouldn’t analyze much.” Is the Forest Service over”planning” and under”doing”?

Guest Post by Christopher Brong
Skamania County Commissioner, District 1

Here in Skamania County, WA, it is a big problem because there is very little active management for sustainable harvest and forest health on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (80% of the County). The 1993 Pacific NW Forest Plan brokered by President Clinton, has not been implemented in 20 years. Individual Forest Plans were formulated, but, little of the plans have been implemented since the environmental groups continued their “file-a-lawsuit” process against the Forest Service. There is also a tremendous fire hazardous on this forest since little timber has been harvested. We are well overdue for a catastrophic fire predicted by several USFS researchers for the “wet” side of the Cascade Mountains. We receive nearly 100 inches of rain/year. Now, it seems the Forest Service would prefer to spend most of their yearly budget on fire suppression, instead of prevention. Since early European settlers arrived until the 1980’s, this region has produced billions of board feet of timber. This region is known as “*….the most productive natural temperate forests in the world.” The Forest provided significant timber harvest receipts to our County from the 1940’s up to the mid-1980’s.

The County encompasses Mt. St. Helens National Monument, 3 Wilderness Areas, 4 federal fish hatcheries, and 2 state fish hatcheries. 59% of the County is Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, which continues to decline. 10% of the County is heavily regulated by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act.

Another 8% of the County is in WA state timber trust and WA Parks lands. 10% is in very large private timber company lands. Fortunately the state trust lands provide a sustainable harvest of timber and the private timber provides a renewable harvest. These provide periodic timber harvest taxes that are minimally predictable.

Which leaves only 2% of the County that is taxed for private property taxes. Since we have depleted our Reserve funding, the County Government budget has been cut in half in the past three years, besides laying off 100 permanent and temporary employees. We are planning for “Secure Rural Schools” reauthorization to not occur, which will require laying off another 25 employees, and, 3 of 4 schools will be closed.

Recreation opportunities are abundant in the County and the region, and we do our best with the tax receipts to provide advertising and events from the customers primarily located in the Portland/Vancouver Region. However these receipts are primarily tourism directed funding, and the tourism job opportunities are below “living-wage” level. The service job wages for bussing tables, tending bars, and cleaning rooms are in the lower end… Federal Government jobs is the largest employer. Followed by the Service sector. Voters, and many urban folks, may believe public lands support the economy in a big way, but that is merely a perception based on lack of knowledge. Which brings me back to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The Forest Service is unable to implement their plans, due to funding and lack of manpower, continual NEPA and ESA lawsuits, and environmental opposition to virtually any type of timber management project. So other than law requiring plans, why bother if you can’t implement the plan?

Note from Sharon: Mr. Brong is our guest, so I ask all commenters to keep hospitality in mind as we agree or disagree. As Benedict of Nursia recommended (for whom the Benedict’s Corner sidebar is named), I ask that we also “listen with the ears of the heart.”