Planning

National Forest Planning News

by

As Matthew just posted, the Rio Grande National Forest has reached the penultimate phase of forest planning – the courtroom.  Here’s a few other updates that address some things we have discussed here.

Helena-Lewis and Clark decision

The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest has released its final revised forest plan after “a more than six year planning process.” This article provides highlights. In reference to travel planning, the forest supervisor indicated that since it had been completed in recent years, the Forest Service did not revisit those decisions in the forest plan (which doesn’t get the relationship quite right because travel plan designation decisions are not made in a forest plan, which I alluded to in a comment here).

Among the more controversial changes from the old forest plan are the replacement of elk hiding cover standards. According to the forest supervisor,

The standards became difficult and in some cases impossible to meet, Avey has said, due to changes on the ground such as high insect mortality in the forest.  The 2021 plan uses “security areas,” defined as blocks of habitat away from roads and guidelines, rather than standards, for tree cover. The changes provide the agency more flexibility as land use or ecology changes, he said. Wildlife advocates have pushed back for years on the shift from hiding cover standards to security areas, saying the standards are both scientifically proven and enforceable.

The Forest wants “flexibility” and the Montana Wildlife Federation wants the plan to be “enforceable.” “MWF is looking forward to addressing this glaring oversight with the Forest.”

Here is the forest supervisor’s take on the 2012 Planning Rule:

Drafting the plan fell under a 2012 Forest Service planning rule, which Avey believes made for a much improved finished product that takes a more holistic approach at the landscape. The rule directs the agency to define “desired conditions,” with subsequent decisions needing to move towards those goals.

“It’s much more powerful and easier to understand, I think, for the public and our staff,” he said. “It will also keep these plans fresher into the future as opposed to how dated our ’86 plans were.”

GMUG draft comments

The Outdoor Alliance has submitted comments on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Draft Revised Forest Plan that focus on recreation issues that we have discussed.  One is high levels of dispersed recreation use, for which the Alliance has proposed designation of specific areas for high use “recreation emphasis.”  Another is the effect (or not) of dispersed recreation on wildlife, stating that “the research on the effect of non-motorized, trail-based recreation on wildlife populations remains inconclusive,” so the Forests should “reconsider the limits on non-motorized, trail-based recreation within Wildlife Management Areas.”

Black Hills initiates revision

We’ve discussed (such as here) the new information about timber inventories on the Black Hills National Forest, and they have officially initiated the revision of the forest plan, which should produce a definitive answer based on the best available scientific information that will make everyone happy.  To summarize:

Just after the last update was introduced in 2006, the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic ravaged forest vegetation for over 10 years.  Jeff Tomac, Forest Supervisor of Black Hills National Forrest, discussed the impact this event had on the ecosystem.  “Timber sustainability on the Black Hills National Forest will be one of the assessments that we will be working through and a lot of interest top many people in and around the Black Hills,” he said.

It is interesting that, while many forest plans have never been revised (and are over 30 years old), a few are on their second revision (the Wayne is another).

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevada-Wide RMP Revision: Planning Challenges and Solutions for the BLM

by

With apologies to those of you not interested in the Planning Quagmire..

Susan Jane Brown in this comment “is it really a NFMA problem, or is this a multiple use problem?”  So the answer would be to look at another multiple use agency (in this case, FLPMA and BLM) and see if they have problems finishing their plans.  My experience was that our State Office was more intent on finishing (more sticks in the bundle? sharper sticks?) than our Regional Office was, but that varied by FS personnel.  We even had a joint plan for a while (RMP and Plan Revision) on the San Juan. The San Juan worked very hard on it, with a great deal of creativity, but as I recall someone stuck a fork in it.. can’t  remember exactly why.  Anyway, I found this interesting powerpoint from last summer by BLM Nevada. Here’s one slide.

Advantages of a Single RMP Revision

Efficiency of scale to meet timeline goal for completion by October 2025.
 Implements recent Executive Orders and meets Department of Interior Priorities.
 Brings half the current RMPs into the 21s t Century –including Elko and Battle Mountain Districts, which are still living in the ’80s– while resolving RMPs that no longer address current issues.
 Avoids continuations of serial, piecemeal RMP amendments, such as for Winnemucca District Visual Resource Management and Southern Nevada District land disposals.
 Assures consistency throughout Nevada for criteria, such as leasing or permit stipulations.
 Harmonizes with concurrent planning to start by Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, covering 5.6 million acres of mountain ranges in Nevada surrounded by BLM lands.
 Incorporates existing, disjointed RMP Amendments into a single plan, including the widespread Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment of 2015, which functions like a separate planning overlay.
 Integrates latest standards for geospatial and corporate data, accessible through a map-based public website that can be continuously updated as a “living document” encapsulating future amendments.
 Reduces risk and adds specificity to RMP conformance statements that may be based upon overly broad and outdated criteria in older RMPs.
 Satisfies long pent-up demand for updated, revised RMPs. Finally gets it done.


Potential Disadvantages & Risks of a Single RMP Revision
o Legal challenges may drag the whole RMP/EIS, although risk reduced with multiple RoDs.
o Funding continuity less certain for sequential Fiscal Year allocations.
o Workload heavy for Nevada State Office and increases for District Offices.
o Whole efforts seems too formidable for ambitious timeline, thus requiring a firm Project Manager.
o Implementation-level decisions would not fit into the RMP and would have to be separate

Here’s another slide:

Meeting Department of the Interior priorities RMP to implement recent Interior Priorities, encapsulating multiple use with sustained yield per FLPMA goals.
Tentative slogan: Planning is cool again to tackle the climate crisis…. (nod to Executive Order 14008, 27 Jan. 2021)

 Identifying steps to accelerate responsible development of renewable energy on public lands and waters.
 No BLM State has more solar applications pending. RMP to feature Designated Leasing Areas (DLAs) and/or Project Development focal areas, new or confirmed transmission corridors, recognition of ongoing projects already initiated.
 Energy Act of 2020: RMP supports national goal of 25 GW additional renewable energy generation nationwide by 2025.
 Integrate with State of Nevada initiatives (e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standard, 2020 State Climate Strategy).
 Strengthening the government-to-government relationship with sovereign Tribal nations.
 Early, targeted outreach for public and tribal engagement through RMP envisioning or pre scoping.
 Tribes invited to be Cooperating Agencies as a supplement to formal Consultation.
 Requests from Tribes represented within the RMP range of Alternatives.
 Making investments to support the goal of creating millions of family-supporting and union jobs.
 Objectives and specific projects, including infrastructure, identified for on-the-ground actions and business opportunities.
 Projects may be carried out by Climate Conservation Corps, AmeriCorps, non-profits organizations, and/or private firms, especially for activities or actions identified as Implementation Strategies a few months after RMP completion.
 Working to conserve at least 30% each of our lands and waters by the year 2030. (America the Beautiful or 30 x 30 Initiative)
 Planning designations for conservation and climate goals, such as via Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs),
Backcountry Conservation Areas (BCAs), Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) areas, Wilderness Character (LWC) units, etc.
 Land use designations, including mitigation sites, serve as an Administrative method for conservation, thus informing any subsequent, more durable conservation via Executive Action or Federal Legislation. See Wilderness Society example.
 Centering equity and environmental justice.
 Appropriate, close scale to identify Environmental Justice communities with latest census and other population data.
 Targeted outreach conducted, with public meetings brought to EJ communities in rural and urban areas.

It almost sounds as if the RMPs also do a variety of things at different scales.. picking where solar should go and what land should be “protected” prior to Executive Action or legislation for “durable” conservation. That seems like an extremely useful exercise, but identifying “specific projects” might be at a different scale. Nevertheless, we can tell from the slide pack that “getting plans done” has also been a challenge to the BLM, which fits in with SJB’s idea. And/or perhaps both NFMA and FLPMA need another look?

And with target dates for renewable installations being urgent, it seems like the BLM might have its own “climate emergency (fast action) meets land management planning (slow action)” challenge. (not that they don’t have fire issues as well.)

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

by

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole article is here.

Do NFMA Timber Analysis Requirements and Terminology Get In the Way of Public Understanding and Support?

by
FS planning photo 1989.

Jon linked to this news article that mentioned the Commissioners’ letter about the GMUG plan revision.  As Andy Stahl has pointed out, NFMA was very timber focused (1976 is almost 50 years ago?) and to follow the law, perhaps the FS is stuck with out-of-date terms that are fairly arcane to most of us on a daily basis. But what if you’re a stakeholder who only interacts with these terms every thirty years during the NFMA planning cycle?  I wonder if there would be a way to simplify all this within the law.  Because if we are trying to change the pace and scale of restoration/fuel treatments and commercial harvest is nested within that,  the old ways and talk and the new ways may not fit -and indeed lead to more confusion and perhaps unnecessary bad feelings.

For example,  here’s what the Commissioners had to say about timber in the draft plan :

3. “A significant increase in suitable timber, which is a designation that interferes with consideration of responsible management of the forests that allow uses other than timber production” (my bold) .

I’m thinking here that the Commissioners simply don’t understand the suitable timber designation. Most of us can’t tell, when we’re recreating on the National Forests, or doing an APD, or applying for an easement, whether the map shows we’re in the suitable timber base or not.  It’s hard to imagine in practice how that could be.  In fact, we might be influenced in our uses by an actual timber sale (that is, staying out while equipment is working; looking out for log trucks on the road) but not by land being in a suitable timber base.

Conveniently, the GMUG clarified what the “timber-y” terms meant in this FAQ document .

Why does timber have a suitability decision?
No other resources seem to have this.
• The 2012 planning rule implements the National Forest Management Act and is used to write a forest plan. Both require the identification of lands suitable for timber production and the 2012
planning rule directs this process.
• Aside from coal suitability decisions required for forests with coal production, timber suitability is the only required suitability decision.
• Other resources are mapped and allocated, such as recreation and scenery, even though they are not specifically allocated as “suitable”.

Does the increase in lands suitable for timber production mean that other resources “lose” those corresponding acres?
• Lands suitable for timber production do not exclude other uses or resources. It does not mean that the area’s primary purpose is timber production. Production areas remain valuable wildlife habitat, popular recreation destinations, healthy watersheds and more.

Why do the acres of lands suitable for timber production increase between the former plan (1991) and the draft alternatives?
• The primary reason for the increase in acreage is the current policy does not require the exclusion of areas that may be uneconomical to harvest. (I asked the Forest and they said the new policy was the 2012 Planning Rule directives).
• Some of the area proposed as suitable for timber production likely will not be viable for commercial harvest, whether due to distance from existing roads, steep slopes, smaller diameter trees or dead stands. The economics and site particulars need to come together to make a viable and sustainable commercial timber sale. But we are unable to project where those will and won’t align, so the current approach is inclusive.
• Each future timber sale is analyzed in subsequent NEPA, and subject to public review.
• Commercial timber harvest is also allowed outside of lands suitable for timber production. Timber harvest in these cases may be for fuel reduction risk, wildlife habitat improvement, safety, salvage, disease or insect sanitation, or other reasons.

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

So what happens is:

(1) NFMA requires timber analysis perhaps currently of dubious value.

Forests do it.  Then they’re accused of focusing excessively on timber, despite all the other analysis that’s done.

and/or

(2) Forests will be asked to do more landscape scale restoration/fuel treatments.  But they don’t know how much of that will be commercial, either what we currently call commercial or what might be commercial in the future. I think the point of the analysis, and others more knowledgeable about the history can help me out, was to keep the forest from cutting too much .. so there were concepts like sustained yield and non-declining even flow and so on.  How relevant are these concepts and calculations today?

Since these future projects are wholly dependent on a) unknown future budgets and b) unknown economic factors, as well as c) unknown opportunities to/desire to salvage, what should a forest put under “timber volume” ? Here’s the GMUG explanation for the numbers in their plan.

Why does timber volume seem to be increasing in the draft forest plan?
• Current production is 60,000 CCF annually. The draft plan proposes as much as 55,000 CCF annually, so the plan would not increase production.
• Timber production on the GMUG has been higher the last few years, reaching over 90,000 CCF per year in 2018 and 2019. We’ve salvage-harvested more due to the spruce-beetle epidemic and lodgepole pine mortality. Timber production in 2020 was 75,000 CCF, and is anticipated to be 60,000 CCF in 2021.
• Harvest is expected to drop over time to approximately 30,000 CCF to 55,000 CCF due to the decline in salvage harvest.
• Because of the emphasis in alternatives B and C to do active vegetation management and more fuels reduction, those alternatives used the higher projection of 55,000 CCF. The other alternatives suggest approximately 30,000 CCF to showcase the lower end of the range in what we might produce.

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

Custer-Gallatin Forest Plan: On Climate Models and Planting Trees

by

This is an interesting article in the Bozeman Chronicle about their forest plan.

A slash pile near Fairy Lake Road can be seen below a recently logged section of the Custer Gallatin National Forest in the Bridger Mountains on Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2021.
Samuel Wilson/ Chronicle/ Report for America

Many points of interest here.. but I’ll call one out. There’s also an interesting discussion with Dr. Phil Higuera of U of Montana on fuel treatments.

Areas where ponderosa pine forests burned years ago east of Livingston are showing little to no signs of recovery.

That’s according to Cathy Whitlock, Regents Professor Emerita of Earth sciences at Montana State University and co-lead on the newly released Greater Yellowstone Climate Assessment.

“There needs to be a seed-source for the forest to recover, and then those seeds need to become seedlings and develop into mature trees,” Whitlock said. “The concern is, at low elevations it’s just getting too dry for that to happen.”

Scientists predict that as drought and wildfire ramp up in the coming decades, forest ecosystems will change. In some parts of the Custer Gallatin National Forest, trees that die off may never grow back.

It’s interesting to me that when we were interested in reforesting dry ponderosa pine sites in the 80’s (that also had seed source, seed crop size, competition from other plants, munching by predators, mycorrhizae and all those associated variables)… we assumed we could overcome those things and worked on them by a considering it a technical challenge, messing with nursery practices, transportation practices, seedling storage, slurries, vexar and all that. As I’ve mentioned here before in Area 4 (then the Ochoco, Winema, Deschutes and Fremont) we hired a person just to work on that .. the Area Reforestation Specialist. On the west side, they had fewer challenges but even SW Oregon had a major investment in Fundamental Fir with OSU. I wonder how many academics and FS researchers specialize in reforestation nowadays?

Are we assuming that trees won’t live in the future because they’re not coming back naturally? Because in the past, we looked at “not coming back naturally” and said “guess we need to plant, they’re not coming back on their own”. The fact is that we don’t know how the climate of the future will affect the microclimates that trees experience, so my view would be “let’s not give up yet.” A few examples are that we know that aspect is important, as are soil type, competitors and so on. There’s a major scale differential between climate models and the environment relevant to a planting project or even a planting program. And local folks have knowledge of these local kinds of difference (where does the snow stay longest? what different soils are there?)

Now we have arrived in a puzzling philosophical eddy between “leave it alone because that’s natural” and “climate change isn’t natural so should we open up manipulation for various reasons?”
Certainly ESA, even without climate change, has led to an array of manipulations including captive breeding, reintroductions and so on. So perhaps the question isn’t “should we manipulate?” but “what’s a good enough reason?”. Which is definitely a values question, not a science question.

Do we want trees back? For wildlife, people, watersheds, carbon etc.
If so, what are we willing to do about it?

If we take the longer timescale view, the infrastructure that supported large and successful planting programs in the 80’s has gone away, and the people who were involved in these efforts are mostly long retired. And one of the Forest Service’s and partners’ current challenges is to crank back up to reforest after large fires. That time gap of infrastructure availability and knowledge transmission will also make new planting efforts almost starting from scratch again. My point being that I hope people don’t point to some lack of success and assume the reason is climate change. If we’d assumed that in the 80’s, there’d be a lot fewer ponderosa pine trees out there sucking up carbon. It was hard enough to reforest dry sites when we assumed we could, but hadn’t yet figured out how.

Forest Planning Update – September 2021

by

As Steve reminded us in his post on the Santa Fe forest plan revision, forest planning was the original focus of this blog, and it’s something I have a particular interest in.  As it happens, a number of national forests are currently engaging the public in their forest plan revision processes.  Links are provided here to the plan revision webpage for each forest, as well as to related articles.  The Forest Service home page for forest planning includes links to the national revision schedule, the status of each forest plan, and a story map of revisions occurring nationally.

FINAL PLAN

The final revised Land Management Plan, FEIS and Draft Record of Decision for the Santa Fe National Forest are available and the 60-day objection period began on September 2 for those who have previously submitted comments.   Steve posted about this here.

DRAFT PLANS

Comments may be submitted until November 5 on the Draft revised forest plan and EIS for the Lincoln National Forest.  (You can attend public meetings on Zoom!)

On August 31, the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests released their draft revised forest plan and EIS for public comments until November 12. There has been a lot of press coverage.  Highlights to me are the interests of the local governments in LESS timber harvest, the extent to which climate change is now an issue, and … drones.  No surprises that recreation and wilderness are also key issues.

NOTICE OF INTENT

On August 25, the Mant-LaSal National Forest published its Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for its revised forest plan, initiating the 60-day scoping period.  Its draft forest plan and assessment report are available for review.  This article based on the Forest Service news release discusses some of the issues.

TRAVEL PLANNING

  • Coconino (Arizona)

For those more interested in travel planning (which must be consistent with the forest plan), the Coconino National Forest is working on an OHV plan:  “Currently, the agency is performing something of a “stern parent/nice parent” routine with local off-highway vehicle companies in order to enlist their help, floating the possibility of road closures or a permit system for OHV routes if progress isn’t made.”

IMPLEMENTATION PAYOFF

  • Monongahela (West Virginia) and Wayne (Ohio)

Here’s an example of how including adequate protective measures in a forest plan can facilitate removing species from the threatened and endangered species list.  The running buffalo clover is being proposed for delisting based on its recovery, due in large part to national forest plans.  This article provides a link to the Federal Register Notice, which says:

“Delisting criterion 3 states that the land on which each of the 34 populations described in delisting criterion 1 occurs is owned by a government agency or private conservation organization that identifies maintenance of the species as one of the primary conservation objectives for the site, or the population is protected by a conservation agreement that commits the private landowner to habitat management for the species…

The forest management plans for both the Monongahela and Wayne national forests include direction and guidelines to avoid and minimize impacts of forestry practices on running buffalo clover. These forestry management practices, as conditioned through running buffalo clover measures included in their respective forest plans, are compatible with running buffalo clover conservation. The forest plans include forest-wide standards and guidelines; compliance with standards is mandatory.”

 

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.

Where should fire suppression be a “fact of life?”

by

Sharon referred to “where fire suppression is a fact of life.”  I referred to the planning question of identifying where those areas are.  It seems to me that would be either where fires won’t ever occur (hard to imagine), or where they can’t be allowed to burn.  The reason in the latter case would depend on some kind of values at risk.  I continue to be amazed at how unwilling the Forest Service is to attack this problem from that direction – minimizing the values at risk in areas that are likely to burn.  In particular, their engagement (or lack thereof) with local community planning for developments and infrastructure.  And there are other reasons besides fire risk, in particular fragmentation of wildlife habitat that reduces connectivity.

Any way, here is an example from the Croatan National Forest.

The 2002 Croatan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan stated that around 70 percent of the Croatan is home to short interval fire-adapted ecosystems—like pine trees and pocosins.

Low-intensity, prescribed fires allows nutrient cycling to occur. Without them, the entire structure and composition of species are subject to change.

“These are fire-maintained habitats, without prescribed burnings, it is like trying to save a salt marsh without the tide,” said Fussell.

Longleaf pine restoration is especially dependent on prescribed fires as the exposed soil helps the seeds to germinate and they control the population of competing pine variations.

Prescribed burning is harder to do the more fragmented an ecosystem is and the closer it gets to development. Because it is harder to burn in smaller areas, prescribed burnings have decreased in recent years, said Fussell.

The Forest Service has a legal imperative to NOT allow the structure and composition of species to change.  Where adjacent development has already occurred, fire suppression is probably going to be a “fact of life,” but that fact should be motivating the Forest Service to participate in local planning to encourage future development consistent with the fire regime on the adjacent national forest.  It’s difficult to understand why no one from the Forest Service was interviewed for this article, since they should be on the forefront of these kinds of discussions.  (They evidently did get involved in some highway planning in order to continue prescribed burning, which at least suggests they recognize the problem.)

This article cites some research that reiterates the findings of the Forest Service “Forest on the Edge” program (which I contributed to along the way).

By 2030, a study from 2009 by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and other industry professionals, projects that 16 million new housing units will be built around national forests across the United States. A projected 662,000 will be built in national forests.

“New houses will remove and fragment habitats, diminish water quality, foster the spread of invasive species and decrease biodiversity,” stated the study.

This is happening everywhere, and the Forest Service needs to be more assertive in trying to minimize the areas “where fire suppression is a fact of life.”

New Forest Service plan revision strategy – not doing it

by

Speaking of the Salmon-Challis and its forest supervisor, I was also reminded by this article of his novel approach to revising the Salmon and Challis national forest plans, which could mean not revising them.  Now it appears that the regional forester (Farnsworth) is actually considering that option.

Given the choice between full revision, amended revision or no revision of the two plans, commissioners Butts and Smith said full revision is the least desirable option.

 

Butts and Smith said they’re concerned a full revision won’t prioritize local stakeholders’ perspectives or address their specific needs. Fearing pressure from environmental groups who don’t live near the forest using lawsuits against the Forest Service to control what happens to it, the commissioners said they worry the most about losing multi-use land stewardship in the forest to wilderness and scenic river designations.

 

Reaffirming the revision process is about getting the national forest in line with current policies, not the Forest Service caving to legal pressures, Farnsworth told the commissioners she will look at the letters they have sent before rendering a decision. “I’ll make this call, one way or another, because we have to stop the bantering,” Farnsworth said.

My understanding is that the Forest Service is not given that choice, and there is only one call that can be made, and it is misleading the public to suggest otherwise.  NFMA requires that forest plans be revised at least every 15 years.  These forests should have revised their plans by 2002.  Congress has given the Forest Service extensions through appropriations riders as long as they are making reasonable progress.  There is no legal option of amending plans instead of revising them, or just keeping them in place forever.  Even further delay can’t be justified at this point, especially where these are the kinds of reasons.  While the requirement for plan revision doesn’t necessarily mean a plan has to be changed, it does require going through the revision process to readopt the existing plan, with full public involvement.  Maybe that’s what they have in mind …