Breckenridge Destinations supports independent journalism. Click for great deals on vacation lodging in Breckenridge.
The U.S. Forest Service hopes a new planning rule will help restore ecosystems and protect wildlife.
Conservation advocates want stronger protections for wildlife
By Bob Berwyn
SUMMIT COUNTY — With more than half the country’s 155 national forests operating under outdated management plans, the U.S. Forest Service is eager to start implementing a new planning rule that was finalized March 23.
But like several previous attempts to revise the existing 1082 rule, this latest version may face a legal test. Now that the rule is final, the Center for Biological Diversity is evaluating whether to pursue a courtroom challenge, said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaign director for the organization.
McKinnon said his organization is scrutinizing the rule for compliance with the National Forest Management Act and will also take a close look at the biological opinion accompanying the rule to see if meets federal standards for protecting plants and wildlife.
“This rule reflects the work of a lot of federal lawyers,” McKinnon said, referring to the perception that the rule was designed at least in part with the idea of repelling potential legal challenges.
The way the Center for Biological Diversity sees it, the latest version of the rule represents the fourth attempt to weaken wildlife protection. The Forest Service was not able to successfully defend its previous attempts to update the planning rule.
Top agency officials say the rule includes stronger protections for water and wildlife, and touted the rule as providing a path toward long-term forest restoration.
“This new rule provides the framework we need to restore and manage our forests and watersheds while getting work done on the ground and providing jobs,” Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said. Listen to a previous teleconference on the planning rule here.
According to the Forest Service, the new planning rule includes requirements to keep common native species common; contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species; conserve proposed and candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.
But McKinnon said the new rule only includes mandatory conservation requirements for species of concern, while the old rule included broader standards aimed at maintaining viable populations of all native species.
And reiterating a concern expressed by conservation advocates throughout the rule-making process, McKinnon said the new rule gives local Forest Service officials too much leeway in deciding whether individual plans offer adequate protection.
“They’ve taken mandatory protections and make them discretionary,” he said.
Altogether, the Forest Service received more than 250,000 comments on the rule during the process. The agency says it strengthens the role of public involvement and dialogue throughout the planning process. It also requires the use of the best available scientific information to inform decisions.
“We are ready to start a new era of planning that takes less time, costs less money, and provides stronger protections for our lands and water”, said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “This new rule will bring 21st century thinking to a process that is sorely needed to protect and preserve our 193 million acres of amazing forests and grasslands.”
Conservationist concerns over loss of species shouldn’t be taken lightly. Leading biologists have been warning for years that the current global wave of species extinctions is a serious threat to the web of life. with each loss affecting greater ecosystems in ways that are as-yet little understood.
That’s a tough thing for Forest Service planners and bio-crats to grasp as they focus on technicalities and on making sure that their plan is legally foolproof.
In areas other than species conservation, the new rule has garnered favorable reviews, especially in its push for restoration of forests and watersheds. If the agency is successful in healing scarred ecosystems, those efforts could do more to maintain healthy plant and animal communities than legal battles over individual species or projects.
Here are some of the highlights, as outlined by the Forest Service. Land management plans under the final rule will include:
- Mandatory components to restore and maintain forests and grasslands.
- Requirements to provide habitat for plant and animal diversity and species conservation. The requirements are intended to keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.
- Requirements to maintain or restore watersheds, water resources, water quality including clean drinking water, and the ecological integrity of riparian areas.
- Requirements for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish.
- Requirements to provide opportunities for sustainable recreation, and to take into account opportunities to connect people with nature.
- Opportunities for public involvement and collaboration throughout all stages of the planning process. The final rule provides opportunities for Tribal consultation and coordination with state and local governments and other federal agencies, and includes requirements for outreach to traditionally underrepresented communities.
- Requirements for the use of the best available scientific information to inform the planning process and documentation of how science was used in the plan.
- A more efficient and adaptive process for land management planning, allowing the Forest Service to respond to changing conditions.
A federal advisory committee will help implement the rule, and several forests around the country will begin revising their management plans this spring under the new rule, including the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests in Idaho, the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico and California’s Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests
Filed under: Colorado, Environment, Forest health, forests, public lands, Summit County Colorado, Summit County news, US Forest Service Tagged: | biodiversity, Center for Biological Diversity, National Forest planning rule, U.S. Forest Service, wildlife conservation
Arapahoe Basin supports independent journalism. Click to visit The Legend online.
Powder's falling at Monarch!! Have you reserved your spot yet?
Innovative energy underwrites coverage of energy stories.
One has to question why groups concerned with conservation and environmental protection are opposed to every action of the agencies in light of the fact that they were full participants in the process of developing the planning rule. I suggest that instead of using their funds and the efforts of their members to delay and obstruct these actions that the environment would benefit far more by lending support, increasing volunteerism, and directly fund projects that rehabilitate species.
It would be interesting to study the money given to lawyers who bring these actions and determine if they were acting out of concern for species or simply acquiring specie. In my opinion, it is the latter.
“…the new rule gives local Forest Service officials too much leeway in deciding whether individual plans offer adequate protection.”
To follow this logic is contrary to the founding principle that the Forest Service is premised on local officials, using information available to them, making appropriate decisions on behalf of the American people. Every one of those officials is accountable to the people they serve. To think that a “top down” approach to land management, and specfically species conservation, is a more effective approach is a foolish selfish, and naive way of conservation thinking.
I agree with you partially. But local Forest Service officials are also more subject to local industry pressure; that’s somewhat different than being responsive to local concerns, by the way.
For example, the supervisor of our national forest is on record as saying he is leaning toward allowing significant disturbance with a ski area expansion in good lynx habitat on the grounds that the habitat in the surrounding area is already degraded. Similarly, the local forest ignored a US Fish & Wildlife Service finding of potential adverse effects to lynx (in a specific high-use recreational area) when it approved a travel management plan.
There has to be a balance, and sometimes, strong national standards are the way to go.
If the new planning rule were to be implemented with the best of intentions by all local forest officials, all would probably be well. But too often, we’ve seen wildlife get the shaft in the name of, well, now it’s “restoration,” and “jobs.”
I completely disagree with you on this. Local land managers have a huge supervisory buffer against any reprimand or pressure from local industry. To put it bluntly, nothing any local industry or official wants can change a single decision by a land manager. All they can do is to provide data and comment just like the rest of the citizenry.
It is the competent and highly trained administration of the public lands that are getting the shaft here. Do you think these people devote their education, their careers, and their very lives to protecting the forests and wildlife because they have some sort of commercially oriented agenda? Ridiculous. They live up to their motto “Land of Many Uses” and should never cave to the new environmental radical motto “Because we said so and we can buy the votes, that’s why!”
That all depends on the integrity of that land manager. I’ve seen (and documented as a reporter) both ways. The history of the Wolf Creek Village proposal is the example that comes to mind most quickly.
This is exactly correct in every respect. It has always been obvious that local land managers make better decisions than centralized policy makers because they knew the conditions of their area better than anyone.
To override these folks with their years of experience, personal motivation in caring for the land, and specific local knowledge with dictatorial policy created by politicians who have never even stepped foot on the lands and have no agenda in that regard except a political agenda is not only wrong, it is immoral. The attitude of Washington policy makers and so-called environmental groups disgusts me because it is so blatantly wrong. LET THE LAND MANAGERS MANAGE THE LAND!!
Forest Supervisors and district rangers come and go, and they know they won’t be held accountable for their decisions in the long term.
How many miles of trails in Summit County has the WRNF supervisor hiked? And don’t get me wrong; I like Scott and I think he makes decisions in the best interest of the forest. But I’m just asking …
They are transient residents and don’t often have strong connections to the communities they live in. In many cases, they are trying to advance their careers (nothing wrong with that in and of itself). Their best chances of doing that is if they can “add feathers to their cap.” That means a new trail system or a ski area expansion. You don’t get as many points for doing passive conservation or restoration.
Strong national standards are needed to make decisions that are in the interest of ALL Americans who own those public lands, not just the the few thousand who live nearby, or whatever stakeholder group may happen to have the most political klout at any given time.
We differ to an astounding degree as to what “strong national standards” should be enacted. The process that you support appears to usurp all due process and enact draconian control that cannot be sustained or supported by the vast majority of people nor the agencies themselves. Only a consensus achieved by communication and cooperation will stand in this arena. Turning the planet into wilderness reserves guarded by an environmental military force that shoots to kill will simply start a war where everyone loses. Using reasoned study and due process will preserve the environment and conserve the resources. Accomplishing that is the point, winning at all costs will not, because the cost will be greater than anyone can imagine. I repeat my position: Let the land managers manage the land with our input as to our recreational and personal needs. Your beloved wilderness radicals do not have any monopoly on a spiritual connection with the Earth.
You’re really mis-characterizing my position, as well as that of the environmental community.
“Turning the planet into wilderness reserves guarded by an environmental military force that shoots to kill will simply start a war where everyone loses.”
Really, Mark? When was the last time an environmentalist shot and killed anyone?
I’m disappointed.
Sorry to disappoint you, Bob, but let’s review the facts that are being overlooked. When a wilderness area is created, a set of federal statutes are enacted. It makes it a felony to enter this area with a motorized vehicle. There are many more felony offenses established along with that one. It may have escaped your notice that federal laws are enforced by people with guns. That makes it a paramilitary operation, and it is enormously expensive to train, organize, and sustain this force. It is not a stretch to blame radical environmental activists for creating this atmosphere when increased enforcement and stricter regulations are a major focus of the environmental movement.
It is all nice and touchy-feely to prattle on about the saving of the fragile environment – which of course needs to be done – but it is better accomplished with cooperative enterprise than with armed guards. You need to take a seriously introspective look at what you are supporting when you support these actions. It is not free, and it is not wise, it is just popular among a certain mindset and being bandied about as a political tool. It is the people out there on forest work crews that are saving the environment, not legislators pandering to a voting bloc. That is why I support letting the land managers make the decisions, not a seriously flawed and partisan legislative process.
Obstructing the forest planning rule, taking millions of acres of public land out of circulation, and endless litigation in the name of environmental protection is becoming the problem, not the solution.
It’s pretty obvious from the language being used who the radical one is.
When did it become radical to tell the truth? When you don’t agree with a fact? When facts come to light that do not support your position? When positions are taken that do not agree with a program? When programs are proposed that do not have bipartisan support?
I believe that there are solutions to all the environmental and conservation issues, and that they should be achieved by adherence to simple principles based on unbiased study and analysis.
- Do not contaminate the environment.
- Understand the capacity of the environment to absorb use.
- Record the environment so that benchmarks may be created.
- Understand that change will occur regardless of individual action.
- Never apply one-size-fits-all actions to complex issues.
There are many more. We all need to contribute to the discussion and arrive at a workable compromise. This will not happen if the fundamental means for enforcing the law is not understood and the effects of actions are not analyzed. The absolute last resort for any group should be to litigate, yet this is the first step taken by environmental groups the instant a program is proposed. Litigation creates decisions, decisions create law, laws create enforcement programs, enforcement programs create militias. Be careful what you wish for.
We usually find a bit of common ground, and I agree with your common sense bullet points. As I said, I was taken aback by the militaristic language in the earlier comments.
Bob, while the forest supervisor and district ranger provide direction to the interdisciplinary team (IDT) during the planning process and do make the final decisions, they are generally well informed by the IDT and those folks are much less transient. These folks are the meat and potatos of the planning process and tend to spend many years on a district or forest. And regardless of decision makers coming and going, it doesn’t change the fact that most came up through the ranks in the FS and have a quality land ethic. Not all, but most.
And FWIW, I didn’t find Mark’s comments disturbing at all. He is correct in his analysis that by definition, government is force. A couple sentences may have been harshly worded, but that doesn’t make them incorrect. And he is correct that the fear of litigation is not creating better management, it is creating a cottage industry for lawyers and non-profits, and taking away resources that are better spent on the ground doing the very work said ‘environmentalists’ would supposedly like to see.
I agree with you about the quality land ethic. That’s been my experience with most of the FS people that I’ve worked with over the years here on the WRNF. However, I have seen, documented and reported several cases where the deciding officer has ignored/glossed-over or otherwise disregarded input from ID team specialists to make a decision that doesn’t mesh with what the science is saying. Giving the deciding officers even more leeway in those situations is questionable, IMO. Just a few examples: District or forest hydrologists identifying streams that don’t meet forest plan standards, yet seeing projects approved that will worsen conditions, or, as I outlined in a previous comment, having the forest approve a travel mgmt plan after hearing from the USFWS that it could (in a discretely managed recreation area at Vail Pass) adversely affect a listed species.In that case, a FS biologist also warned that the same level of activity in that area could be detrimental to lynx in what is a key choke point in a movement corridor.
I am in Minnesota so I can’t speak to specifics on the examples you provide. I will say that none of the three are surprising or for that matter particularly troubling. Many times the information provided to the deciding official is incomplete or inconclusive and words such as ‘may’, ‘could’, or ‘possibly’ are the best we can do (as two of your examples state, and my guess is the ‘will’ is your word, not the hydrologist’s). There is no such thing as perfect science since we don’t have perfect information. And many times nature is much more forgiving than we give her credit for. Don’t take that to mean we shouldn’t be conservative and thoughtful in what we do.
The deciding official needs to take into account all manner of competing objectives. I highly doubt they ‘ignored/glossed-over/disregarded’ the information, though certainly possible if they are the small percentage I mentioned above. More likely, they decided another objective was more important, the data was not convincing, or the impact was acceptable. I would expect they spelled out their reasoning in the decision document that they signed. I can tell you those folks take their responsibility very seriously.
All that said, it would be naive to think that in some cases there are certain ‘factors’ that override. That’s just how the world works and it’s not likely to change anytime soon.
It is necessary to actually participate in a Forest planning process to understand just how true this is. Forest Service employees are reviewed and graded on how well they implement programs based on adherence to guidelines, and those guidelines do not get changed until they are developed with a rigorous process.
It is entirely correct to interpret my insistence on actual participation as a serious dig at people and organizations who try to say that the process is not carefully administered. Anyone who actually goes to the meetings and reviews the comments like myself knows that this is the case. Sound bites and fond wishes do not carry the day with agency decisions – Carefully researched comment and face-to-face participation does.
Here in Utah the Forest Service district rangers are certainly a “captured” bunch. They often see and perform their jobs primarily as committed welfare agents for ranchers. They often come from ranch families and go to church with their ranchers. In fact, it is not uncommon for a public lands rancher to be the District Ranger’s Mormon bishop. Without scrutiny and regulation, the public doesn’t get much input into an arrangement like this and the forests are run like large private ranches at the public’s expense.
I would like to propose a challenge to this statement. It is a simple matter to determine who the District Ranger is in every district. It should be easy to determine who the bishops are in each and every ward. I insist that your opinion is false unless you can prove a single instance of a District Ranger who has a bishop that might affect his decisions. Good luck on finding out the religious preference of each and every Forest Service employee.
I do not belong to the LDS church and I do not work for the Forest Service, but I think it is unfair and perhaps even bigoted to make a statement like this without proof. Consider this fact – anyone who has reached the position of a District Ranger is regularly transferred into other areas to obtain a wide range of experience, no one stays put for long. That fact alone makes the possibility of bias and a “good old boy” network unlikely in the state of Utah. Perhaps what you think you have observed is simply a case of land managers making reasoned decisions based on local conditions – exactly like it is done in every National Forest.
If you had even bothered to read my earlier comment explaining that the planning process is designed to keep the bias you are alleging from happening, perhaps you would not have made this unfair assessment of the Forest Service.