DOCSLIB.ORG

Northwest Forest Plan-The First 10 Years (1994-2003)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northwest Forest Plan-The First 10 Years (1994-2003) NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN THE FIRST TEN YEARS (1994–2003) Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest and Three Local Communities Susan Charnley, Candace Dillingham, Claudia Stuart, Cassandra Moseley, and Ellen Donoghue General Technical Report United States Forest Pacific Northwest D E PNW-GTR-764 E Department of R P A U T RTMENTOFAGRICUL Service Research Station August 2008 Agriculture The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, wa- ter, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic infor- mation, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Per- sons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program informa- tion (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 In- dependence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Susan Charnley and Ellen Donoghue are research social scientists, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205. Candace Dillingham is a forester and social scientist, and a retired employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, CA 96097. Claudia Stuart is a community planner and former employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest, Genetic Resource Center, 2741 Cramer Lane, Chico, CA 95928. Cassandra Moseley is a political scientist and Direc- tor of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, 5247 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5247. Abstract Charnley, Susan; Dillingham, Candace; Stuart, Claudia; Moseley, Cassandra; Donoghue, Ellen. 2008. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring of the Klamath National Forest and three local com- munities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-764. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 111 p. This report examines socioeconomic changes that took place between 1990 and 2003 on and around lands managed by the Klamath National Forest in California to assess the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) on rural economies and communities there. Three case communities were studied: Scott Valley, Butte Valley, and Mid- Klamath. The report characterizes the region and its history, discusses management changes on the forest under the Plan and how they were perceived, describes socioeco- nomic change in the communities and how they were linked to the Plan, and evaluates how well Plan socioeconomic goals were met by the Klamath National Forest. Keywords: Socioeconomic monitoring, Northwest Forest Plan, forest communities, rural development, Klamath National Forest. i Preface In the early 1990s, controversy over harvest of old-growth forests led to sweeping changes in the management of federal forests in western Washington, Oregon, and northwest California. These changes were prompted by a series of lawsuits in the late 1980s and early 1990s that effectively shut down federal timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest. In response, a Presidential summit was held in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. This summit led to issuance by President Clinton of a mandate for federal land manage- ment and regulatory agencies to work together to develop a plan to resolve the conflict. The President’s guiding principles followed shortly after the summit in his Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and Sustainable Environment,1 now called the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan). Immediately after the summit, a team of scientists and technical experts were convened to conduct an assessment of options.2 This assessment provided the scientific basis for the Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (ROD)3 to amend Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). The ROD, to be implemented across 24 million acres of federal forest lands (9.7 million hectares), put in place a whole new approach to federal land management. Key components of the ROD included a new map of land-use allocations–late-successional reserves, matrix, riparian reserves, adaptive management areas, and key watersheds. Plan standards and guidelines provided the specific management direction regarding how these land-use allocations were to be managed. In addition, the Plan put in place a variety of strategies and processes to be implemented. These included adaptive manage- ment, an aquatic conservation strategy, late-successional reserve and watershed assess- ments, survey and manage program, an interagency organization, social and economic mitigation measures, and monitoring. Monitoring provides a means to address the uncertainty of our predictions, and compliance with forest management laws and policy. The ROD clearly states that monitoring is essential and required (see footnote 3): 1 Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A., Jr. 1993. The forest plan for a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment. Washington, DC: The White House. 7 p. plus appendices. 2 Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination] 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]: 74 p. (plus attachment A: standards and guidelines). ii Monitoring is an essential component of the selected alternative. It ensures that management actions meet the prescribed standards and guidelines and that they comply with applicable laws and policies. Monitoring will provide information to determine if the standards and guidelines are being followed, verify if they are achieving the desired results, and determine if underlying assumptions are sound. Finally, Judge Dwyer reiterated the importance of monitoring in his 1994 decision declaring the Plan legally acceptable:4 Monitoring is central to the [Northwest Forest Plan’s] validity. If it is not funded, or done for any reason, the plan will have to be reconsidered. The ROD monitoring plan provided a very general framework to begin development of an interagency monitoring program. It identified key areas to monitor, initial sets of questions, types and scope of monitoring, the need for common protocols and quality assurance, and the need to develop a common design framework. In 1995, the effective- ness monitoring program plan5 and initial protocols for implementation monitoring6 were approved by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Approval of the effectiveness monitoring plan led to the formation of technical teams to develop the overall program strategy and design,7 and monitoring protocols for late-successional 4 Dwyer, W.L. 1994. Seattle Audubon Society, et al. v. James Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, et al. Order on motions for Summary Judgment RE 1994 Forest Plan. Seattle, WA: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington. 5 Mulder, B.; Alegria, J.; Czaplewski, R. [et al.]. 1995. Effectiveness monitoring: an interagency program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [et al.]; report; Monitoring Design Group, Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. 6 Alegria, J.; Hyzer, M.; Mulder, B.; Schnoes, B.; Tolle, T. 1995. Guidance for implementation monitoring for management of habitat for late-successional and old- growth-related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Unpublished document]. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204. 7 Mulder, B.S.; Noon, B.R.; Spies, T.A.; Raphael, M.G.; Palmer, C.J.; Olsen, A.R.; Reeves, G.H.; Welsh, H.H. 1999. The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-437. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 138 p. iii and old-growth forests,8 northern spotted owls,9 marbled murrelets10 (Brachyramphus marmoraturs), tribal relations,11 and watershed condition.12 Socioeconomic monitoring protocols continue to be tested.13 Periodic analysis and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science to Inform Land Management in the Area of the Northwest Forest Plan
    Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science to Inform Land Management in the Area of the Northwest Forest Plan Thomas A. Spies, Jonathan W. Long, Peter Stine, Susan to reassess how well the goals and strategies of the Plan are Charnley, Lee Cerveny, Bruce G. Marcot, Gordon Reeves, positioned to address new issues. Paul F. Hessburg, Damon Lesmeister, Matthew J. Reilly, The NWFP was developed in 1993 through a political Martin G. Raphael, and Raymond J. Davis1 process involving scientists in an unusual and controversial role: assessing conditions and developing plan options “We are drowning in information, while starving directly for President Bill Clinton to consider with little for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by involvement of senior Forest Service managers. The role of synthesizers, people able to put together the right Forest Service scientists in this planning effort is differ- information at the right time, think critically about ent—scientists are now limited to producing a state-of-the- it, and make important choices wisely.” science report in support of plan revision and management —E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of (USDA FS 2012a), and managers will conduct the assess- Knowledge (1988) ments and develop plan alternatives. Implementation of the NWFP was followed by moni- Introduction toring, research, and expectations for learning and adaptive Long-term monitoring programs and research related to management; however, little formal adaptive management Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) goals, strategies, actually occurred, and the program was defunded after a few and outcomes provide an unprecedented opportunity years.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Trend of Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest
    NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN THE FIRST 10 YEARS (1994–2003) Status and Trend of Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Melinda Moeur, Thomas A. Spies, Miles Hemstrom, Jon R. Martin, James Alegria, Julie Browning, John Cissel, Warren B. Cohen, Thomas E. Demeo, Sean Healey, Ralph Warbington General Technical Report United States Forest Pacific Northwest D E PNW-GTR-646 E Department of R P A U T RTMENTOFAGRICUL Service Research Station November 2005 Agriculture The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood ,water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Retirees—Summer 2015 President’S Message—Jim Rice
    OldSmokeys Newsletter Newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Retirees—Summer 2015 President’s Message—Jim Rice I had a great career with the U.S. Forest Service, and volunteering for the OldSmokeys now is a opportunity for me to give back a little to the folks and the organization that made my career such a great experience. This past year as President-elect, I gained an understanding about how the organization gets things done and the great leadership we have in place. It has been awesome to work with Linda Goodman and Al Matecko and the dedicated board of directors and various committee members. I am also excited that Ron Boehm has joined us in his new President-elect role. I am looking forward to the year ahead. This is an incredible retiree organization. In 2015, through our Elmer Moyer Memorial Emergency Fund, we were able to send checks to two Forest Service employees and a volunteer of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest who had lost their homes and all their possessions in a wildfire. We also approved four grants for a little over $8,900. Over the last ten years our organization has donated more than $75,000. This money has come from reunion profits, book sales, investments, and generous donations from our membership. All of this has been given to “non-profits” for projects important to our membership. Last, and most importantly, now is the time to mark your calendars for the Summer Picnic in the Woods. It will be held on August 14 at the Wildwood Recreation Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Chugach National Forest Planning Area and the Three Different Geographic Areas of the National Forest
    Chapter 2 Ecological Conditions and Trends Chapter 2 Ecological Conditions and Trends Introduction Chapter 1 described the Chugach National Forest planning area and the three different geographic areas of the national forest. This chapter describes the overall ecological integrity of the area. Ecological integrity for this assessment is defined as: “The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.” (36 CFR 219.19) The ecosystems described in this chapter include terrestrial (soils, vegetation, and wildlife), aquatic (freshwater and coastal marine ecology) and the interface between the two (riparian areas and wetlands).These ecosystems are evaluated at the forestwide and geographic area scales where appropriate. Key characteristics of each ecosystem are identified, including species composition and diversity, structure, function, and connectivity. Existing conditions and trends of the key characteristics are described for each ecosystem. System drivers are also discussed and include dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors for the different ecosystems. This chapter also includes a discussion of federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species that occur within the Chugach National Forest and a discussion of potential species of conservation concern. It concludes with a discussion and summary findings of the ability of the aquatic, terrestrial, and riparian ecosystems in the plan area to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. Physical properties of the environment both constrain and enable the development of some ecological systems within the Chugach National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Suction Dredge Mining Impacts on Pacific Lamprey Populations and Habitat in Washington State: a Case Study of the Entiat River
    Suction dredge mining impacts on Pacific lamprey populations and habitat in Washington State: A case study of the Entiat River __________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ___________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Cultural and Environmental Resource Management ___________________________________ by Jaime Lee Liljegren August 2019 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of Jaime Lee Liljegren Candidate for the degree of Master of Science APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Anthony Gabriel, Committee Chair ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Karl Lillquist ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Clay Arango ______________ _________________________________________ Dean of Graduate Studies ii ABSTRACT SUCTION DREDGE MINING IMPACTS ON PACIFIC LAMPREY POPULATIONS AND HABITAT IN WASHINGTON STATE: A CASE STUDY OF THE ENTIAT RIVER by Jaime Liljegren Suction dredge mining is a largely unregulated recreational activity in Washington State with potentially significant impacts to aquatic habitat. Although dredging has the potential to cause Widespread ecological effects, only impacts to select species have been thoroughly assessed. Due to their reliance on freshwater habitat throughout multiple life stages, Pacific lamprey are significantly vulnerable to impacts from dredging practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Wildfire Resource Guide
    JUNE 2006 re Tribal Wildfi re Resource Guide Developed in Partnership with: Intertribal Timber Council Resource Guide Resource Innovations, University of Oregon Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation Tribal Wildfi “According to the traditional beliefs of the Salish, the Creator put animal beings on the earth before humans. But the world was cold and dark because there was no fi re on earth. The animal beings knew one day human beings would arrive, and they wanted to make the world a better place for them, so they set off on a great quest to steal fi re from the sky world and bring it to the earth.” -Beaver Steals Fire, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Tribal Wildfi re Resource Guide June 2006 Developed in Partnership with: Intertribal Timber Council Written by: Resource Innovations, University of Oregon Graphic Design by: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation Images from: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation and the Nez Perce Tribe For thousands of years, Native Americans used fi re as a tool to manage their lands and manipulate vegetation to a desired condition. Tribes once lived harmoniously with nature until the U.S. Federal Government claimed much of their lands and changed the forests from a condition that we would today call “fi re-adapted ecosystems” into the fi re-prone forests that we now see throughout much of western United States. Many forests that were once abundant producers of natural resources are now resource-management nightmares. The cost to manage them now is astronomical compared with the natural method employed by Native Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Step 3 - Current Conditions
    Step 3 - Current Conditions INTRODUCTION - This step describes the current occurs during summer thunderstorms. Winter range, distribution and condition of ecosystem precipitation occurs mainly as snow above 4,000 feet elements. It is organized by Issue as presented in elevation, and mainly as rain below that elevation. Step 2 and answers Key Questions identified for Fluctuation of the snow level occasionally results in each issue of this step. rain causing rapid snow melt. PRECIPITATION AQUATICS The precipitation record is characterized by two distinct climate trends (Table 3-1). These alternating periods of wet and dry conditions lasted for a few HILLSLOPE PROCESSES decades. The short duration of the record and irregular nature of climatic change preclude Key Question 1- What are the dominant forecasting of these periods. The drier periods are of hydrologic and erosional characteristics and approximately 40 inches average annual processes within these watersheds, including precipitation, the wetter are of approximately 60 impacts of the 1997 flood? inches. The Happy Camp record, along with longer records from Eureka and other stations in Landslides introduce large volumes of coarse northwestern California, indicate that the period 1870 sediment to streams during episodes of intense to 1910 was a wet time; 1911 to 1937 dry; 1938 to precipitation. This results in changes in the structure 1975 wet; 1976 to 1994 dry and 1995 to present wet. of stream channels and the quality of instream Intense precipitation of 1982-83 and 1997 are related habitat. Episodes of large amounts of sediment to strong El Niño effects. The probability of production are followed by about 10 years of rapid occurrence of rare, intense storms is higher during adjustment of channel geometry.
    [Show full text]
  • C a L I F O R N
    BACKPACKER CALIFORNIA <<< WILD WEEKENDS IN YOUR BACKYARD & N E V A D A Lower Rock Creek Morris Meadow Enjoy a variety of seasons in Inyo National Forest Get an alpine fix, maybe some fish, on this Trinity Alps trek THE HIKE This downhill shuttle hike may be THE HIKE If you can’t wait for the warmup to hard on the knees, but the views of seasonal thaw high routes in the Sierras and southern change are easy on the eyes. In spring, you Cascades, this 18-mile out-and-back into the can watch the last remnants of snow give heart of the Trinity Alps Wilderness is just the way to blooming wildflowers; in fall, you can ticket. Follow the Stuart Fork Trail as it parallels see autumn colors rewind to vibrant summer the tumbling waters of Stuart Fork, winding greens as you descend 1,900 feet over 9.3 through a rocky channel beneath a dense miles. Start on the Lower Rock Creek Trail as canopy of mixed hardwoods. The river supports it drops gently from the upper trailhead, then cross the creek a healthy population of rainbow trout, so pack tackle. You’ll climb and follow its banks southeast for 2.2 miles. When you reach a gentle slope up a canyon amid black oaks, ponderosa pines, the road, hook right; follow the road briefly, then cross the creek and incense cedars, crossing several streams. After nearly 9 again and pick up the trail on its west bank. Head another 2.2 miles of forest, expansive Morris Meadow opens up at 4,400 miles south through the woods until you cross the road and feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Alps Wilderness
    Golden ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! Russian ! ! ! 9 ! 6 ! 1 ! ! ! ! 7 4 ! N N ! Grizz 4 ! 4 9 0 0 0 l 3 ! 0 y 0 ! G ! 0 8 ! ! A 2 4 0 0 Lower ! N ! 0 6 0 0 0 u 0 0 4 7 ! 9 0 8 l 0 3 2 4 Lake 0 2 k ! ! 0 6 ! 4 6 2 0 r 8 N ! ! ! 0 TNH82 o ! 4 9 3 ! 36 F ! ! 00 0 3 ! ! 40 0 ! ! Russian ! 00 C 0 6 31 9 0 ! 11 ! ! 3 ! ! 2 r 0 4 0 ! 2 0 5 1 y 32 e 3 h 33 ! 3 6 7 1 5 ! 0 ! 3 5 4 0 9 0 2 34 0 ! 6 2 8 e 0 6 N ! 2 0 6 4 4 0 N ! 1 0 e ! c 0 k 0 9 ! 12 ! 0 2 6 l 4 0 Lake 4 0 10 ! ! 1 5 3 v 6 2 ! 0 Black ! N 0 9 8 ! r 3 0 0 0N83 u ! 4 0 ! 0 6 2 ! ! ! ! ! Camp Eden ! a Waterdog 5 3! ! 8 ! 5 Bear ! G ! 2 ! 1 4 ! ! !0 4 N ! 4 ! 9 9 ! ! 0 ! 3 39N40 00 H 4 W 3 6 B ! ! ! 5 C ! ! ! ! 4 0 ! ! ! Lake 39 Summit ! 0 ! ! 0 e ! ! ! ! ! 0 ! 0 C ! ! 0 ! 4 ! 0 ! 0 9:; ! ! ! 4 ! s 4 0 ! ! 4 ! ! ! 0 4 4 o ! ! A 6 ! t Russian 0 ! ! ! 0 ! ! ! ! A ! 0 ! ! ! ! ! 0 ! 6 ! ! ! ! 5 3 m ! 0 ! ! ! ! ! ! 8 ! ! ! r ! 6 0 ! ! 3 ! 0 ! 440 ! 4 ! g ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 4 ! 0 p 9 ! 4 0 ! A ! ! 0 N ! 0 3 ! ! 0 ! r u ! e ! N ! ! ! ! ! 6 Lake ! ! ! ! e ! ! e ! 0 ! 1 ! ! s ! s ! 39 ! k s 0 9 ! ! ! 12 ! ! ! 0 ! ! o ! n h ! k n ! ! o ! s 9:; ! ! ! ! ! ! k ! t ! ! r c ! a C ! ! ! F J ! r a ! ! A e ! ! e ! ! e ! ! k u ! B h ! 41N16 D ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! Y ! ! ! ! ! o ! 12 ! e E o c ! 3 ! 8 Jackson ! l ! ! r ! ! ! r 11 0 ! 7 ! e 8 9 ! S 0 0 ! 11 ! ! u 9 ! 10 k 10 2 k ! 3 3 C 7 8 0 7 v ! TH ! 4 9 ! 6 8 ! i ! ! B 15 ! B 3 ! e 0 G ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 14 13 ! Siphon 0 G L Lake 9 3 ! 0 7 e ! ! 0 ! 39 ! r 4 0 ! N A ! 9 ! u ! ! 0 0 ! 600 A ! 4 G 8 ! 9:; ! N 0 2 C 1 l 4 ! 0 ! 0 c 8 ! ! 8 u Lake 5 5 6 8 5 0 L
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Forest Plan
    Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Outline All sections of this document, considered together, are the complete compilation of standards and guidelines. However, these standards and guidelines are broken down into the following sections for clarity and ease of reference. A. Introduction - This section includes introduction, purpose, definition of the planning area, relationship to existing agency plans, introduction to the various land allocation categories used elsewhere in these standards and guidelines, identification of appurtenant maps, and transition standards and guidelines. B. Basis for Standards and Guidelines - This section includes a background discussion of the objectives and considerations for managing for a network of terrestrial reserves. This section also contains the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which includes discussions of the objectives and management emphases for Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration. C. Standards and Guidelines - This section includes specific standards and guidelines applicable to all land allocation categories. It also contains descriptions of, and standards and guidelines applicable to, all designated areas, matrix, and Key Watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions of Forestry Alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 100–115 www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis$ Robert G. Ribeà Department of Landscape Architecture, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5234, USA Available online 10 August 2006 Abstract Conflicts over timber harvesting and clearcutting versus wildlife conservation have instigated alternative silvicultural systems in the US Pacific Northwest. Major forest treatments can be the most controversial element of such systems. A public survey explored the social acceptability of 19 forest treatments that varied by forest age, level of green-tree retention, pattern of retention, and level of down wood. The survey presented respondents with photos of the treatments, explanatory narratives, and resource outputs related to human and wildlife needs. Respondents rated treatments for scenic beauty, service to human needs, service to wildlife needs, and overall acceptability. Acceptability distribution patterns were analysed for all forest treatments. These showed broad, passionate opposition to clearcutting, conflict over the acceptability of not managing forests, conflict over old growth harvests, conflict with some passionate opposition to 15% retention harvests, and unconflicted acceptance of young forest thinnings and 40% retention harvests. Modelling of these responses found that socially acceptable forestry attends to scenic beauty
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Salmon Center
    Wild Salmon Center > Annual Report 2017 President’s Letter Free-fl owing rivers and their The Wild Salmon Center and our local partners have now seasonal runs of wild fi sh are won legal protections for almost 9 million acres of land in cherished by local people, strongholds, secured wild fi sh management agreements and fi shermen, indigenous designations in 68 watersheds in the Russian Far East and communities, and anglers, Pacifi c Northwest, and have established 13 new conservation until something bad happens groups throughout the Pacifi c Rim. that puts the river ecosystem This year, we are helping lead a major partner-based and its wild fi sh into long-term campaign in Alaska (see page 9), have three more large decline. It might come in the watersheds being added to Russia's network of regional form of a big development protected areas (see page 14), and are helping launch a new such as a dam, or a large-scale initiative in British Columbia (see page 19). mining project like the Pebble Mine proposed for the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska. As climate change warms our rivers, and the demands of Or it can come in the form of “death by a thousand cuts,” the growing economies of the Pacifi c Rim for food, water, including illegal fi shing, clear-cut logging, hatchery fi sh minerals and energy threaten even the most remote river programs, or water withdrawals for agriculture. systems, we must secure our great salmon, trout and steelhead ecosystems. We must preserve them as reservoirs We have learned over two decades of work that the most of salmon genetic and life history diversity, safeguarded by effective protection of a salmon river comes before the ancient forests, cold clear fl ows and local people who are damage is done.
    [Show full text]