Forest Service releases final Land Management Planning Framework

by

This just in (Jan. 30, 2015):

FOREST-PLANNING-RULE: Forest Service releases final Land Management Planning Framework

Flores, Tanya E, [email protected]

I am pleased to announce  that the Forest Service has issued final Planning Directives. These Directives are a key set of agency guidance documents for implementation of the 2012 Planning Rule. Our intent is to ensure an adaptive land management planning process that is inclusive, efficient, collaborative and science-based to promote healthy, resilient, diverse and productive national forests and grasslands.

Proposed Directives were released for comment in February 2013. The Secretary of Agriculture’s  Federal Advisory Committee (FACA Committee) recommendations, 16,000+ public comments, extensive regional input, advice from Washington Office staffs, agency-wide roundtables, and lessons learned from early adopter implementation were used to formulate the final Directives.

One of the Agency’s key goals is to make the planning process easy to understand in an effort to increase community involvement in protecting and restoring natural resources. The final Directives provide clearer direction and greater context for how the public can engage in planning activities. The revisions incorporated into the final Directives will support efforts to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of planning processes.

I want to thank everyone for their continued interest and involvement. Your input, experiences, feedback and relationships within our communities have helped shape these Directives.

A copy of the final directives, along with background information, can be obtained at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/home, or by calling (202) 205-1449.

California’s Forests: Where Have All the Big Trees Gone?

by

“The number of trees larger than two feet in diameter has declined by 50 percent on more than 46,000 square miles of California forests, the new study finds.”

“But in comparing a census of California forests done in the 1920s and 1930s with another survey between 2001 and 2010, McIntyre and his colleagues documented a widespread demise of big trees that was evident even in wildlands protected from logging or development.  The loss of big trees was greatest in areas where trees had suffered the greatest water deficit.”

If nothing else, this supports a policy of not killing the survivors.

Final policy for managing over-snow vehicle use

by

Let winter travel planning begin.  Not something the Forest Service wanted to do, but the result of a court decision that found the Forest Service incorrectly exempted snowmobiles from the travel planning regulations.  Here is the new regulation and a news article.

Over-snow vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by the Responsible Official …

After National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands have been designated for over-snow vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.81 on an administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System, and these designations have been identified on an over-snow vehicle use map, it is prohibited to possess or operate an over-snow vehicle on National Forest System lands in that administrative unit or Ranger District other than in accordance with those designations…

This will require analysis of effects of allowing over-snow use in places where that hasn’t been through a NEPA or ESA process.

And let the collaboration begin:

Chad Sluder, president of the Sawtooth Snowmobile Club based in the central Idaho town of Bellevue, said his club of 75 members would take an active part in that process.  “We don’t want to lose any more ground, and if it comes to that we will fight it to the end,” Sluder said. “It’s the ongoing battle between the skiers and snowmobilers. They don’t want us there and we have every right to be there.”

Off course, even Wilderness boundaries don’t seem to make a difference (see article).

U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers caught nine snowmobilers illegally riding in two separate wilderness areas recently.

 

The 2015 Extreme Fire Behavior Webinar Series

by
(note from Sharon.. I wasn’t capable of just copying the nice-looking ad from JFSP  so sorry this doesn’t look nice.. it does have the info).

Seven webinars covering important content 

highlighted in our 

Extreme Fire Behavior publication

Stay tuned January through early May as we roll out these important webinars. All will be recorded for later viewing. 
 Effect of Complex Terrain on Extreme Fire Behavior
January 27 – Craig Clements  

 

Critical Fire Weather Patterns – Eastern United States, Canada and Australia
February 10 – Paul Werth 

 

Critical Fire Weather Patterns –Western United States
February 11 – Paul Werth

Fire Columns and Plume Dynamics
February 26 – Brian Potter

 Spot Fires
March 12 – Brian Potter

Vortices and Wildland Fire
April 30 – Scott Goodrick and Jason Forthofer 

Crown Fire Behavior in Conifer Forests
May 7 – Marty Alexander and Miguel Cruz

Registration and Info for all EFB Webinars

Collaborating with the enemy

by

This story reminded me of that use of this term:

The County Commission passed a resolution officially requesting the forest service immediately cease actions it has been taking since 2013 pertaining to grazing on Dixie National Forest.

The forest service actions protested include the gathering of data, conducting studies and preparing reports without the county’s involvement. The resolution further protests a cooperative relationship the forest service has engaged in with Grand Canyon Trust Inc., which the commission and the Utah Association of Counties maintain constitutes an improper relationship with nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs.

In its resolution, the County Commission “respectfully requests” the forest service discard any data, studies and reports prepared without notice and involvement of the county since 2013 and that the service coordinate with Washington County in any future action from the outset.

An undated letter from Mark Ward, senior policy analyst and general counsel for the Utah Association of Counties, (responding to an Aug. 18, 2014, forest action), supports and is made a part of Washington County’s resolution. In his closing, Ward wrote to the supervisors of Dixie National, Fishlake and Manti-LeSal forests, all affected by the Aug. 18 action:  ‘Forest Service should scrap the FS Initial Review, start over and next time, integrate NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) into the process. After all, it is the stated policy of Forest Service to ‘fully integrate NEPA requirements into agency planning and decision-making,’ … and ‘apply (NEPA procedures) to the fullest extent practicable to analyses and documentation of Forest Service actions …’

NEPA doesn’t apply until you have an ‘action’ to propose, and the NEPA process is supposed to encourage review of the data used in evaluating the action (regardless of its source).  The cash-starved government is always looking for help in collecting data.  Is there a problem with this approach?

 

Classic “sue and settle”

by

“Conservationists settle lawsuit after the government agrees to conduct a comprehensive environmental analysis of the drilling project. Following the conservation groups’ opening brief in the case, the Forest Service agreed to withdraw approval of the project.” 

So what’s wrong with this?  Better to gamble taxpayer dollars on a losing hand?

Collaboration on plans vs projects

by

Some observations about the recently revised Kootenai forest plan.

Robyn King, president of the stakeholders’ group, said her organization hasn’t taken a stand on the broader forest plan, although they did publicly support the East Reservoir Project that could result in several small-to-medium timber sales in Lincoln County this year.

“As you can imagine, due to the diversity of our group, there are quite a few opinions about the new forest plan!  The coalition did not work together on a joint response to the forest plan,” King said.

Peck points to the stakeholders’ group as an example of how forest management should take place. “The best solutions come from the closest spot to the impact. Who better to make the decisions than a diverse group of people living here, in and around the forest?”

That involvement will continue, promised King. “What we are looking forward to is our continued involvement at the project level collaborating with each other and with the United States Forest Service to find common ground agreements on vegetative management for the forest,” she said.

Despite the hype associated with the 2012 planning rule’s foray into collaboration, I think this is a more realistic approach.  The broader, regional and national interests that are hard to collaborate with are more relevant to overall strategic planning for national forests than to specific projects.  In addition, the track record so far for collaboration for forest plan revisions is not encouraging.  I would be more inclined to agree with Peck’s statement if he is talking about a project that is being developed consistent with a forest plan that reflects broader interests.

More on monetizing public lands

by

The latest on Montana, giving credit where credit is due (i.e. there’s nothing ‘grassroots’ about it):

“The American Lands Council is leading the charge on this. I’m not a member, but I do appreciate that they’re helping elected officials get better educated on this,” Fielder said.

I’m sure that education includes these facts:

ALC bases much of its justification for lands transfer on sections in the Western states’ Enabling Acts that say the federal government “is obligated to extinguish title to additional lands.”

But a University of Utah legal analysis published in October found that phrase applied only to Indian lands, not public lands. The analysis also outlined several laws and Supreme Court decisions that firmly establish federal control of public lands.

“As the owner of public lands, the United States holds the public lands ‘in trust for the people of the whole country,’ not solely for the benefit of adjacent landowners,” the report said.

Someone came up with a new financial twist – give states the land, federal tax dollars keep paying for the upkeep:

Fielder said the state wouldn’t need that much money if the federal government were required to pitch in.  “This catastrophic wildfire condition has grown on their watch. So keeping the federal government on the hook for helping with fire suppression is something we ought to look at,” Fielder said.

And these folks don’t like to collaborate:

But Fielder dismissed collaboratives as ineffective.  “Citizens have very little chance to get their objectives inserted in federal land management plans because paid lobbyists are there at every meeting. They pretty much drown out the local community’s voice,” Fielder said.

I’m sure that’s based on a good set of facts, too.

 

 

Grand Canyon Fire Recovery

by

This is an interesting picture from the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. The fire burned and killed off all the pines but, the underground mass of aspen roots and shoots survived. I wonder how a pine component could “naturally” come back, or, did Indian burning favor old growth pines? Certainly, the higher pine forests of the Kaibab Plateau are overstocked and at risk, today.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA