The Northwest Forest Plan:

Transcription

1 The Northwest Forest Plan: Interrelating Impacts of Science and Policy World Forestry Institute October 21 st 2009 Kati Brueckner, German Fellow University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde

2

3 Content History Goals and Objectives of FEMAT From FEMAT to the NWFP Project Area Standard and Guidelines Perspectives Where is the Plan now? What went wrong? Lessons learned

4 What was the Motivation for the Plan? FEMAT process to create the NWFP 1993/April Forest Conference no timber sales until FS complied to NEPA Late 80s: judicalization of forestry 60s/70s: environmental laws: NEPA / ESA / NFMA 50s: excess of timber production modern environmentalism

5 Goals and Objectives of the FEMAT process Identify management alternatives that attain the greatest economic and social contributions and meet the requirements of the applicable laws and regulations including ESA, NFMA, NEPA first meet the law then provide the timber!

6 Goals and Objectives of the FEMAT process In addressing biological diversity Maintenance / restoration of habitat conditions for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet to support viable population of species at least expected to be associated with old-growth forest conditions of spawning and rearing habitat to support recovery and maintenance of viable population of different threatened fish species Maintenance / creation of connected old-growth forests

7 From FEMAT to the Northwest Forest Plan Northwest Forest Plan ROD: December 1994 Final SEIS: February 1994 Option 9 shall be my forest plan (July 2, 1993) Assessment of options from different perspectives Development of options Team composition

8 Project Area Scope 24.3 million ac in total In WA, OR, CA 20.7 million ac are forested 14.3 million ac of trees > 9 in 19 National Forests (19,400,000 ac) 7 BML Districts (2,700,000 ac) 6 National Parks (2,200,000 ac)

9 Standard and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old- Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Definitions of the planning area Relationships to existing management plans Land allocation categories Background of ecosystem management Objectives of managing terrestrial and riparian reserves Specific s & g (survey & manage) applying to all land allocations Adaptive Management Area concept Monitoring plan Description of interagency structures

10 Standard and Guidelines Land Allocations CRAs: Congressionally Reserved Areas LSRs: Late-Successional Reserves AMAs: Adaptive Management Areas Mix of Matrix and RRs Riparian Reserves MLSAs: Managed Late- Successional Areas AWAs: Administratively Withdrawn Areas 1st Qtr Source: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

11 Standard and Guidelines Survey and Manage 1. Protection of known sites of rare organisms. 2. Survey of the presence of rare organisms prior to ground disturbing activities. 3. Surveys to identify location and habitats of rare species. 4. General regional surveys for rare species. Challenge: Only a few experts can identify some of the species Lack of knowledge about the methods to identify and detect species Some species need to be surveyed over a couple of years survey and manage costs 20 million a year (2004)!

12 Industry / Rural Communities (1940s-1980s) Counties tended to ally themselves with timber product firms Created well-paid jobs/timber revenues supported public service Forest firms cut trees to meet consumer demands Federal land management agencies made 10 year plans Stakeholder agreed in making federal timber supply available

13 Environmentalists

14 Politics Issue was resolved politically Plan complied with law Clinton wanted to win: Presidential decision Congress has been divided: no solution Conflicting laws passed

15 Where is the Plan now? Interagency coordination to implement the NWFP is not working well Survey and Manage procedures: 20 million a year (2004) The potential for AMAs has not been fulfilled Little thinning is done in the eastern LSRs Thinning in the western LSRs rarely happen The plan was never implemented as the scientists envisioned Scientists are blamed for failures to achieve the expectations for timber harvest

16 Where is the Plan now? Interagency coordination to implement the NWFP is not working well Survey and Manage procedures: 20 million a year (2004) The potential for AMAs has not been fulfilled Little thinning is done in the eastern LSRs Thinning in the western LSRs rarely happen The plan was never implemented as the scientists envisioned Scientists are blamed for failures to achieve the expectations for timber harvest But Principle goal is achieved!

17 What went wrong? Land managers/regulatory Agencies avoid to implement the Plan Administration asked biol. scientists to solve a social problem Several Congresses enacted conflicting laws: gridlock A plan developed centrally by scientists and political leaders has low likelihood of being accepted and implemented by a decentralized organization!

18 Lessons Congress must clarify the purpose for federal lands conflicting goals lead to gridlock Several needs create the possibility for different purposes, goals, and management strategies. Careful design: link policy level and assessment level asap: do not force the scientists to make policy. NWFP is lacking public funding Implementation is focused on output-oriented parts

19 Thank you! Special thanks: Paul Adams (OSU), Tom Partin (American Forest Council), Tom Tuchmann (US Forest Capital), John Gordon (Center for Sustainable Processes and Practices)