The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

The management of water resources in National Forests and Grasslands continues to be an important topic in the development of the new planning rule, and was discussed at last week’s National Roundtable.  While the meeting presentations were intended to focus on the more general topics of forest restoration and resilience, some participants at the meeting wanted to speak specifically about water. 

There is substantial interest in this topic.  The importance of water and watersheds as a unifying principle in the planning rule was discussed previously on this blog.  The Forest Service’s inability to address watershed restoration was also previously discussed, as well as problems integrating scientific information with observed watershed conditions. 

The planning rule website contains some of the initial concepts proposed to be included in the rule for addressing watersheds:

• Each Forest Supervisor would assess existing conditions and trends of aquatic systems, riparian systems, connectivity, wetlands, floodplains, and the flow processes.  The roles and contributions of each forest would also be determined.  Watershed vulnerabilities and risks would be identified.
• Each Forest Plan would be required to address the maintenance or restoration of water resources, including protection for lakes, public water supplies, shorelines, source waters, streambanks, streams, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediments.
• Monitoring would be implemented to evaluate watershed health and status, trends, and risks associated with public water supplies and source water protection areas.

Earthjustice and Pacific Rivers Council released a concept paper last week with additional suggestions about what the planning rule should do.  The proposal suggests that the planning rule should require forest plans to establish riparian reserves, prioritize protection and restoration of key watersheds with the highest aquatic integrity, establish measurable watershed conservation objectives and indicators of aquatic ecosystem integrity that are directly linked to management standards and monitoring, describe road removal objectives and road density standards, provide for connectivity and watershed processses, and integrate monitoring of watershed integrity into project design.

A new General Technical Report from the Pacific Northwest Research Station released in June also lists several planning actions that should be considered to protect watersheds from population pressures, land uses, and rapid climate change.  It suggests that planning should set priorities for watersheds and specific effective protection measures, based on predicted vulnerabilities to climate change and other stressors.   Scenario-based planning should be used to design contingency plans based on plausible events or impacts.   The document also lists considerations in protecting watersheds from energy development, fire and fuels projects, infrastructure development, recreation, water use and diversions, timber harvest, and livestock grazing.

Some researchers have also outlined a “no-regrets” strategy to watersheds and planning for potential hotter and drier conditions.  Based on scenario planning, a Forest Plan could establish baseline protections and make sure that watershed systems are better able to adapt to whatever comes along. 

In a search for a streamlined, easy-to-implement planning rule, the specifics of watershed management may be left out of the proposed text.  However, there is strong support for water planning as a central feature of the rule.  One watershed program manager told me that the rulewriters should avoid making the same error that many in the Forest Service do, assuming that the concept of restoration only appeared on the scene when foresters started writing about it in the 1990’s and 2000’s. Watershed restoration has a much longer history in the agency and the scientific community, and is one of the foundations for why the Forest Service came into existence.  Watershed maintenance and restoration could be the cornerstone of the philosophical underpinning of the rule.

Proposed changes to the NFMA planning rule species viability provision were presented to the public at last week’s National Roundtable on the proposed planning rule in Washington D.C.  The viability provision, intended to fulfill the diversity requirement of the National Forest Management Act, has been the most contentious element of previous attempts to change the NFMA planning regulations (or rule).

The proposal would make five major changes to the species viability requirement of the existing 1982 rule.

1. The requirement would apply to all species, not just vertebrates. The following categories of species would need specific attention in a forest plan: (1) contribution to recovery of Threatened or Endangered species; (2) conservation of “species at risk” to preclude listing (species at risk are candidate, proposed, and other species for which loss of viability is a concern across the range of the species); (3) conservation of “species of concern” to prevent extirpation from the plan area (“species of concern” are rare within the plan area but are relatively secure throughout their range.)

2. The plan would need to provide “ecological conditions” (rather than “habitat”) to support viable populations of native species in the plan area.  Ecological conditions would include components of the biological and physical environment that could affect diversity of plant and animal communities and the “productive capacity of ecological systems.”  The components could include not only habitat, but roads and other developments, human uses, and non-native invasive species.

3. Rather than selecting “management indicator species” to monitor, there would be a “strategic” selection of a “small set” of focal species. Focal species would be those whose status and trends are likely to be responsive to changes in ecological conditions, permit inference to the integrity of the overall ecosystem, and provide meaningful information regarding the effectiveness of the plan in maintaining diversity of plant and animal communities. The rule would require two levels of monitoring – the first level would be specific to the forest, and the second level would require coordination between the Forest Supervisor, Regional Forester, and Station Director for those species whose range is wider than a forest.

4. The rule would contain language similar to the 2005/2008 rule that provided for species at two levels or “filters.” The first level, is the “ecosystem level”, and the plan would guide the maintenance or restoration of structure, composition, processes and diversity of healthy and resilient ecosystems (lots of buzzwords there – new terms of particular importance are “restoration” and “resilience” – the rule attempts to relate those two terms by explaining that the goals of restoration are to assist in the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems) Also, the idea is intended to be consistent with NFMA’s diversity provision that uses the notion of “community.” The second level would be the species level, but like the 2005/2008 rule, the intent is that most plan direction would respond to the first level and not the second.

5. Specific language would be added to the rule to explain that the species viability obligation is “within the authority of the Forest Service” and the “capability of the land.” This addresses cases where factors affecting viability are outside of the agency’s control. Note that these provisions may also be relevant when changes in climate would change the capability of the land.

The draft proposed rule will begin the clearance process in the Forest Service and the Department throughout August and Sepctmber. In October, it will be submitted to OMB and other federal agencies. The proposed rule and DEIS will be published in December, with public comment from January to March.

Further information is available on the planning rule website.

Proposed text for a new Forest Service planning rule was shown to the public at a Fourth National Roundtable last Thursday and Friday in Washington D.C.  Approximately 90 public participants and about 35 Forest Service employees discussed the specifics on how the rule might guide Forest Plan revisions and amendments.  About 20 people also watched the proceedings online and participated in a “virtual” discussion forum.

The meeting began with the Forest Service rule-writing team discussing what they had heard at previous meetings, and what concepts they were proposing.  They focused on five key areas: collaboration, monitoring, recreation and other multiple uses, plant and animal diversity, and ecosystem restoration and resilience.  Then participants were broken into smaller groups for further discussion.  On the second day, the Forest Service planning team talked about the overall planning framework (assessments, revisions, monitoring) and addressed additional questions about climate change, water, social considerations, fire, roads, and the objections process.

Several key issues emerged from the discussions. 

There is considerable confusion about how a planning process will address multiple uses given several ecological concepts that are embedded in the rule, such as restoration, ecosystem resilience, ecosystem services, and sustainability.  For some, those ecological concepts are too fuzzy and are confusing. 

There is general agreement with the principles of collaborating with the public and other governments, but many felt there isn’t much in the proposed language about how collaboration will be conducted.  There are questions about basic requirements, how all views will be considered, and how it will be related to decision making. 

There is also agreement about the increased emphasis on monitoring, especially the requirement to include broad-scale monitoring larger than a specific National Forest.  However, there is confusion about how monitoring data will be used, and what role monitoring will play in triggering plan revisions and amendments, or changes to projects.  There are questions about how to respond fast enough once a problem is identified through monitoring.  There are also questions about how monitoring data will be available to the public.

A complete report of the discussion is available on the planning rule website and blog.

The development of the planning rule is moving quickly.  Using feedback from the Fourth roundtable, the planning rule blog, a National Tribal Roundtable, and internal Forest Service discussions, the Planning Rule Team will finish a draft of the proposed rule and write a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.  The draft proposed rule will go through clearance in the Forest Service and Department of Agriculture throughout August and September.  In October, the Department will submit the proposed rule and DEIS to the Office of Management and Budget and for review by other federal agencies.  The proposed rule and DEIS will be published in December 2010, with public comment from January to March 2011.

Here is some newly posted info.

If you’re going in person, you’re probably there by now. If you’re not, consider joining in via webcast. Instructions and agenda here. Blog contributors Martin Nie and John Rupe are attending.