Wildlife conservation planning under the United States Forest Service's 2012 planning rule

Courtney A. Schultz, Thomas D Sisk, Barry R. Noon, Martin A. Nie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2012, the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated new planning regulations in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). These regulations represent the most significant change in federal forest policy in decades and have sweeping implications for wildlife populations. We provide a brief overview of the history of the NFMA planning regulations and their wildlife provisions and review the current science on planning for effective wildlife conservation at the landscape scale. We then discuss the approach to wildlife conservation planning in the 2012 rule and compare it to alternatives that were not selected and previous iterations of the planning rule. The new planning rule is of concern because of its highly discretionary nature and the inconsistency between its intent on the one hand and operational requirements on the other. Therefore, we recommend that the USFS include in the Directives for implementing the rule commitments to directly monitor populations of selected species of conservation concern and focal species and to maintain the viability of both categories of species. Additional guidance must be included to ensure the effective selection of species of conservation concern and focal species, and these categories should overlap when possible. If the USFS determines that the planning unit is not inherently capable of maintaining viable populations of a species, this finding should be made available for scientific review and public comment, and in such cases the USFS should commit to doing nothing that would further impair the viability of such species. In cases where extrinsic factors decrease the viability of species, the USFS has an increased, not lessened, responsibility to protect those species. Monitoring plans must include trigger points that will initiate a review of management actions, and plans must include provisions to ensure monitoring takes place as planned. If wildlife provisions in forest plans are implemented so that they are enforceable and ensure consistency between intent and operational requirements, this will help to prevent the need for additional listings under the Endangered Species Act and facilitate delisting. Although the discretionary nature of the wildlife provisions in the planning rule gives cause for concern, forward-thinking USFS officials have the opportunity under the 2012 rule to create a robust and effective framework for wildlife conservation planning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)428-444
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Wildlife Management
Volume77
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2013

Fingerprint

USDA Forest Service
wildlife management
conservation planning
nature conservation
planning
wildlife
viability
forest management
national forests
monitoring
Endangered Species Act
state forest
services
forest policy
endangered species
history
regulation
plan

Keywords

  • at-risk species
  • coarse-filter
  • fine-filter
  • focal species
  • forest planning
  • monitoring
  • viability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • Ecology
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cite this

Wildlife conservation planning under the United States Forest Service's 2012 planning rule. / Schultz, Courtney A.; Sisk, Thomas D; Noon, Barry R.; Nie, Martin A.

In: Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 77, No. 3, 04.2013, p. 428-444.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schultz, Courtney A. ; Sisk, Thomas D ; Noon, Barry R. ; Nie, Martin A. / Wildlife conservation planning under the United States Forest Service's 2012 planning rule. In: Journal of Wildlife Management. 2013 ; Vol. 77, No. 3. pp. 428-444.
@article{36f394f24ed74f90bc3d67a52d9f0a9f,
title = "Wildlife conservation planning under the United States Forest Service's 2012 planning rule",
abstract = "In 2012, the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated new planning regulations in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). These regulations represent the most significant change in federal forest policy in decades and have sweeping implications for wildlife populations. We provide a brief overview of the history of the NFMA planning regulations and their wildlife provisions and review the current science on planning for effective wildlife conservation at the landscape scale. We then discuss the approach to wildlife conservation planning in the 2012 rule and compare it to alternatives that were not selected and previous iterations of the planning rule. The new planning rule is of concern because of its highly discretionary nature and the inconsistency between its intent on the one hand and operational requirements on the other. Therefore, we recommend that the USFS include in the Directives for implementing the rule commitments to directly monitor populations of selected species of conservation concern and focal species and to maintain the viability of both categories of species. Additional guidance must be included to ensure the effective selection of species of conservation concern and focal species, and these categories should overlap when possible. If the USFS determines that the planning unit is not inherently capable of maintaining viable populations of a species, this finding should be made available for scientific review and public comment, and in such cases the USFS should commit to doing nothing that would further impair the viability of such species. In cases where extrinsic factors decrease the viability of species, the USFS has an increased, not lessened, responsibility to protect those species. Monitoring plans must include trigger points that will initiate a review of management actions, and plans must include provisions to ensure monitoring takes place as planned. If wildlife provisions in forest plans are implemented so that they are enforceable and ensure consistency between intent and operational requirements, this will help to prevent the need for additional listings under the Endangered Species Act and facilitate delisting. Although the discretionary nature of the wildlife provisions in the planning rule gives cause for concern, forward-thinking USFS officials have the opportunity under the 2012 rule to create a robust and effective framework for wildlife conservation planning.",
keywords = "at-risk species, coarse-filter, fine-filter, focal species, forest planning, monitoring, viability",
author = "Schultz, {Courtney A.} and Sisk, {Thomas D} and Noon, {Barry R.} and Nie, {Martin A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1002/jwmg.513",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "428--444",
journal = "Journal of Wildlife Management",
issn = "0022-541X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wildlife conservation planning under the United States Forest Service's 2012 planning rule

AU - Schultz, Courtney A.

AU - Sisk, Thomas D

AU - Noon, Barry R.

AU - Nie, Martin A.

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - In 2012, the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated new planning regulations in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). These regulations represent the most significant change in federal forest policy in decades and have sweeping implications for wildlife populations. We provide a brief overview of the history of the NFMA planning regulations and their wildlife provisions and review the current science on planning for effective wildlife conservation at the landscape scale. We then discuss the approach to wildlife conservation planning in the 2012 rule and compare it to alternatives that were not selected and previous iterations of the planning rule. The new planning rule is of concern because of its highly discretionary nature and the inconsistency between its intent on the one hand and operational requirements on the other. Therefore, we recommend that the USFS include in the Directives for implementing the rule commitments to directly monitor populations of selected species of conservation concern and focal species and to maintain the viability of both categories of species. Additional guidance must be included to ensure the effective selection of species of conservation concern and focal species, and these categories should overlap when possible. If the USFS determines that the planning unit is not inherently capable of maintaining viable populations of a species, this finding should be made available for scientific review and public comment, and in such cases the USFS should commit to doing nothing that would further impair the viability of such species. In cases where extrinsic factors decrease the viability of species, the USFS has an increased, not lessened, responsibility to protect those species. Monitoring plans must include trigger points that will initiate a review of management actions, and plans must include provisions to ensure monitoring takes place as planned. If wildlife provisions in forest plans are implemented so that they are enforceable and ensure consistency between intent and operational requirements, this will help to prevent the need for additional listings under the Endangered Species Act and facilitate delisting. Although the discretionary nature of the wildlife provisions in the planning rule gives cause for concern, forward-thinking USFS officials have the opportunity under the 2012 rule to create a robust and effective framework for wildlife conservation planning.

AB - In 2012, the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated new planning regulations in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). These regulations represent the most significant change in federal forest policy in decades and have sweeping implications for wildlife populations. We provide a brief overview of the history of the NFMA planning regulations and their wildlife provisions and review the current science on planning for effective wildlife conservation at the landscape scale. We then discuss the approach to wildlife conservation planning in the 2012 rule and compare it to alternatives that were not selected and previous iterations of the planning rule. The new planning rule is of concern because of its highly discretionary nature and the inconsistency between its intent on the one hand and operational requirements on the other. Therefore, we recommend that the USFS include in the Directives for implementing the rule commitments to directly monitor populations of selected species of conservation concern and focal species and to maintain the viability of both categories of species. Additional guidance must be included to ensure the effective selection of species of conservation concern and focal species, and these categories should overlap when possible. If the USFS determines that the planning unit is not inherently capable of maintaining viable populations of a species, this finding should be made available for scientific review and public comment, and in such cases the USFS should commit to doing nothing that would further impair the viability of such species. In cases where extrinsic factors decrease the viability of species, the USFS has an increased, not lessened, responsibility to protect those species. Monitoring plans must include trigger points that will initiate a review of management actions, and plans must include provisions to ensure monitoring takes place as planned. If wildlife provisions in forest plans are implemented so that they are enforceable and ensure consistency between intent and operational requirements, this will help to prevent the need for additional listings under the Endangered Species Act and facilitate delisting. Although the discretionary nature of the wildlife provisions in the planning rule gives cause for concern, forward-thinking USFS officials have the opportunity under the 2012 rule to create a robust and effective framework for wildlife conservation planning.

KW - at-risk species

KW - coarse-filter

KW - fine-filter

KW - focal species

KW - forest planning

KW - monitoring

KW - viability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875750932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875750932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jwmg.513

DO - 10.1002/jwmg.513

M3 - Article

VL - 77

SP - 428

EP - 444

JO - Journal of Wildlife Management

JF - Journal of Wildlife Management

SN - 0022-541X

IS - 3

ER -