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