Forest Plan Revision Process

Morning Meeting Summary

Participants

Forest Service – Ron Pugh, Brad Burmark, Martha Maciel, Peter Stine, Terry Simon-Jackson, Lee Anne Schramel-Taylor, Mike Chapel

Agencies – Jim Branham (Sierra Conservancy), Patricia Megason (RCRC), Brett Storey ( Placer County), Pete Southworth (CA Att. General), Bruce Gwyne (DOC), Chris Keithly ( CalFire), Glenda marsh (DFG), Jan Knight (FWS), Kim Squires (FWS), Arnold Roessler (FWS), Jeann Panek (CARB), Chris tooker (CEC), Maria Milanes-Murcia (Nat. Resources Agency), Giny Chandler ( CalFire), Jana Standiford (Nat. Resources Agency), Russ Henly ( CalFire), Bill Kinney (CEC), and Sandra McGinnes (BLM).

An overview of the anticipated plan of work for forest plan revisions in California. Ron Pugh

Ron explained that the Forest Service will be using the 2008 Planning rule which focuses more on strategic planning and collaboration. The Forest Service will use the new rule to guide the revisions of 14 national forests in California. Ron reviewed the process and components for preparing Comprehensive Evaluation Reports ( CERs) and plan revisions. See handout for Ron’s Powerpoint.

Questions from the Group

What is the relationship to the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework record of decision?

Changes to the 2004 ROD will be evaluated based on monitoring results and the experience gained from implementation, and that new information (new science) will be evaluated. This will be open to public collaboration.

How will the Forest Service work with tribes?

Through the established government to government processes.

Why have some forests begun their plan revision work?

The Modoc and LTBMU have started and the Inyo is beginning discussions locally. While they are doing some early work, their CERs and revisions must be consistent with the Regional CER.

How will the collaboration processes at the regional and local levels be coordinated?

More work is needed by the Forest Service to determine the linkages. We will need to present some early ideas at the July 1 meeting.

Is there a definition of sustainability that will guide the process?

The new planning rule has guidance for this. Citation in the planning rule given.

How will unresolved issues be resolved?

If they are not resolved in the objection process, litigation is the next option.

Comment—the process used at Lake Tahoe, which requires those who object to offer a solution to have standing, should be considered for this work.

How will the effects of nearby management of private lands be addressed?

This will be addressed in the CER.

How will the new CERs address national strategy for climate change?

This will be addressed in all CERs. If it is not in there now, they will be amended.

Will some guidance in CERs be mandated for consistent application by forests and less strict for others?

Most likely.

Is there in link with regional transportation planning?

No mandated link, but this issue can be addressed where it is important.

The group was invited to attend the July workshop at McClellan where they will be asked to help think about the structure and process for public participation as well as advise on the early content of the CER for the Sierra Nevada.

Afternoon Meeting Summary

Participants

Forest Service – Ron Pugh, Brad Burmark, Martha Maciel, Peter Stine, Terry Simon-Jackson, LeAnne Schramel-Taylor, Mike Chapel

Public – Mary Clarke Verhoef (National Forest Homeowners), Dennis Driggers (Huntington Lake Assoc.), Tom Ward ((IMBA), Bill Thomas (California Cattlemen’s Assn.), Kim Ingrim (UC Coop Extension), Amy Granat (CORVA), Michael Garabedian (Friends of North Fork), Rene Voss (John Muir Project), Justin Oldfield (CCA), Elisa Noble (Ca Farm Bureau), Geoff Anderson (National Forest Homeowners), Jordan Wellwood (Audubon) and (by phone) Darca Morgan (Sierra Forest Legacy).

Overview of the anticipated plan of work for forest plan revisions in California. Ron Pugh

Ron explained that the Forest Service will be using the 2008 Planning rule which focuses more on strategic planning and collaboration. The Forest Service will use the new rule to guide the revisions of 14 national forests in California. Ron reviewed the process and components for preparing Comprehensive Evaluation Reports (CERs) and plan revisions. (See handout for Ron’s Powerpoint.)

Questions and Discussion

How will the Humboldt–Toiyabe be addressed?

Not determined yet.

How will the forests be scheduled to begin the process?

They will begin as forests finish travel management.

How does the timeline for Region 5 compare to other regions?

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit will be the first to release a draft plan in Region 5. Other regions are on similar timelines.

Will the Forest Service respond to comments on the CER?

Yes, formal comments may not be provided, but open discussions will.

How will the regional CER inform forest plans when they seem to be out of phase?

They will be phased as the issues emerge.

Will participants have knowledge about how others are advising?

Yes, web tools and other venues will be used for this purpose.

Can people provide input outside of meetings?

Yes, process to be determined.

Why were the forests and regions given so many planning projects at the same time?

We are uncertain of the thinking behind the current direction. We will communicate the public concern for this.

Has staff and funding been identified for this work?

Yes. Regional Executive and Interdisciplinary Teams have been established

Will the region use external facilitators for the public meetings?

External facilitation is envisioned for this process.

How will forests handle issues that overlap with their neighboring forests?

The regional CER will guide these. Generally, the forests and region will work together to complete work for these issues so they are integrated.

How will the CERs and plans comply with NEPA?

The appropriate level of NEPA will be used. We envision the plans to be strategic in nature

How will the Forest Service provide ways for people to attend meetings without traveling long distances?

We will do more work to build that into the public participation plan.

Comment – some members of the public are very concerned that multiple large-scale planning projects are being done at the same time. This makes participation in all events challenging for them.

Close – everyone was invited to continue the discussions on July 1 at McClellan.