USFS Region 9 Update - Northeastern Area Association of State

NAASF Forest Resource Planning Committee Meeting (2012 )

1

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -Carl Sagan

2

Main Issues: 

2012 Planning Rule



Region 9 Broad-scale Monitoring Strategy

3

Other Topics: 

  

Allegheny NF Huron-Manistee NF BMPs Ecosystem Services

4

Budget:

5

The New 2012 Planning Rule 

Went into effect early April.



Draft Directives are in review.



In use by Early Adopter Forests

The New 2012 Planning Rule Emphasizes: Landscape scale conservation

 

“Within the context of the broader landscape”



“The Unit’s distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape.”



Watershed (and water) conservation



Climate change



Collaboration

The rule requires responsible officials to consider:    



opportunities to coordinate with neighboring landowners to link open spaces; joint management objectives where feasible and appropriate; the landscape-scale context for management as identified in the assessment; land ownership and access patterns relative to the plan area.

These requirements reflect the ‘‘all-lands’’ approach the Agency is taking to resource management.



Change from post-decisional Appeals process to a pre-decisional Objections process.

9

Broad-scale Monitoring From the 2012 Planning Rule: “The regional forester shall develop a broader-scale monitoring strategy for unit monitoring questions that can best be answered at a geographic scale broader than one unit.”

10

What is our goal with this strategy? 

Land managers readily have adequate and appropriate information on those social, economic, and environmental factors that influence the resources they manage, and understand how their management decisions influence, and are influenced by, the natural resources managed by others.  “Within the context of the broader landscape”  “The Unit’s distinctive roles and contributions within the

broader landscape.” 11

What are our objectives? 

Improve communication and information sharing between Forests.



Improve data development and sharing with other units of the FS and other organizations.



Establish minimum standards for monitoring on each Forest.



Identify opportunities for joint monitoring efforts with partners.

12

What are our objectives? (cont.) 

Emphasize landscape-scale collaboration, planning and monitoring.



Identify and use information already being gathered.  Where gaps are identified, collaborative and inclusive efforts with all

parties for which the gap is relevant should form the basis to go forth. 

Each unit will establish a comprehensive group of partners that is designed to determine needs, conduct studies, and to assemble existing information.

13

What are our objectives? (cont.) 

Prioritize inventory and monitoring activities at both unit and regional scales.



Identify redundant and inefficient monitoring efforts and either improve them or eliminate them, thereby freeing resources for other, and more necessary monitoring.



Provide for stability in the Region whereby roles, responsibilities, and expectations are understood internally and externally.

14

Adaptive Monitoring Strategy 

Will incorporate feedback on management actions, and also rely on feedback to applied monitoring practices.



Will use monitoring data to refine monitoring intensity and actions, and where monitoring efforts should be prioritized.



Will provide data that allow ecological objectives and goals to be evaluated so that specific management actions can be taken where needed.

15

Here is our strategy: 

We will use the LMP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (MET 2007) (http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/met/index.shtml) as the structure for the broader-scale monitoring strategy.



All of the existing monitoring efforts within the region, including program-specific, LMP, research and project-level monitoring, will be grouped into the Themes and Sub-elements from the LMP M&E Framework (new Themes and Sub-elements will be created as needed).

16

LMP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Ecological, Social, & Economic Attributes of Desired Conditions

--------------------------------------------------THEMES----------------------------------------------------Climate

Biological Diversity

Land, Health And Vitality

Soil, Water, & Air Resources

Social Benefits

Economic Benefits

Infrastructure Capacity

-------------------------------------------SUB-ELEMENTS----------------------------------------------

Climate

Vegetation Diversity

Invasive Species

Watershed Health

Opportunities And Settings

Provision of Goods and Services

Biophysical

Species Diversity – Wildlife

Resilience To Fire Disturbance

Soil Quality

Public Issues And Values

Jobs and Income Contributed

Species Diversity – Aquatic

Native Insects & Pathogens

Air Quality

Species Diversity – Plants

Roads, Trails, and Facilities

Tribal Relations

Cultural Resources

R1 Supplement – Sub-Elements

17

What are our potential data sources?            

Watershed Condition Framework Terrestrial Condition Framework FIA NVUM Climate Change Scorecard LANDIS DATIM LUCID/Montreal Process Criteria & Indicators NEON NASF - Statewide Forest Resource Assessments and Strategies Natural Resources Monitoring Partnership (NRMP) Northern Forest Futures Project 18

Example 1: Oak Regeneration 

Name: Oak Regeneration Monitoring



Status: Proposed



Description: An opportunity to efficiently and effectively monitor the oak restoration in the Central Hardwoods region. It may be economically beneficial to the Regions and the forests to take advantage of the “economies of scale” available in designing and collectively implementing a unified monitoring system across forests (and perhaps across Regions as well).

19

Example 1: Oak Regeneration (cont.) 

Resources: 1) District, Forest, and Regional levels of the National Forest System; 2) Northern and Southern Research Stations; 3) R8/R9 Vegetation Inventory-Monitoring Program; 4) FIA.



Accomplishments: [none to date]



Tasks: 1) Obtain the cooperation and support of the various partners involved; 2) Negotiate and formalize responsibilities and funding sources; 3) Establish a core set of variables and protocols to provide the ability to pool data for improved evaluations; 4) Conduct evaluations; 5) Adjust management prescriptions of individual NFs for adherence to Desired Future Conditions. 20

Example 2: Northern Goshawk 

Name: Northern Goshawk Monitoring



Status: Proposed/On-going



Description: The Northern Goshawk is a RFSS in R9 and an MIS on some Forests. R9 Forests are often challenged on viability of the goshawk. Currently, there are no statistically reliable estimates of goshawk population or population trends in the Western Great Lakes bioregion. A proven protocol for estimating goshawk population at the bioregional scale has been developed and successfully applied in Regions 1, 2, and 5. On completion of this project R9 will have statistically sound estimates of goshawk numbers which can be used in planning, EIS, and appeals. 21

Example 2: Northern Goshawk (cont.) 

Resources: State DNRs, large private landholders, commercial timber industry and other interested parties will be brought together in this effort. Loose commitments for funding have already been made by EMC and some state DNRs. All partners will be asked to contribute to the funding needs.



Accomplishments: FIRST SURVEY: Northern goshawk are widely distributed and occur at significant densities throughout the WGL;



Tasks: Need to repeat the survey to determine distribution and trends. Funding needs: $300K (split amongst partners). 22



All of this will serve to speed up the planning process.

23

Questions?

24