Laserfiche WebLink
Previously, the SJPLC was following the new 2005 Planning Rule. However, that rule <br /> was enjoined by a district court in northern California because a judge decided the Forest <br /> Service had not followed proper procedure in preparing the Planning Rule. <br /> Thurman Wilson,Assistant Manager of the SJPLC, said the Forest Service is working <br /> on revisions to the new Planning Rule that will correct procedural problems. Some <br /> national forests are waiting to resume drafting their plans until the new rule takes effect, <br /> but the SJPLC decided not to wait. So the SJPLC has been able to adapt the draft to the <br /> 1982 Planning Rule. This will entail changes in some of the details of the Plan Revision. <br /> However the 1982 rule allows enough flexibility to preserve many of the positive aspects <br /> that resulted from the 2005 approach. <br /> Under the 2005 Planning Rule, the docu ment talked about aspirations and expectations, <br /> focusing on Desired Future Conditions, and minimized the more prescriptive elements of <br /> management. After switching back to the 1982 Planning Rule, the agencies retained the <br /> concept of Desired Future Conditions and the Plan's aspirational focus. <br /> However, the 1982 rule does include an element about which the Water Roundtable <br /> members had expressed concern: the concept of standards and guidelines. Under the new <br /> rule, the Plan had only guidelines, and didn't include standards. Standards are considered <br /> mandatory whereas guidelines can be used flexibly with proper justification, Thurman <br /> said. <br /> Mark said he believes the agencies have found a way to make the standards and <br /> guidelines fit within the overall context of the Plan. Some elements related to air quality <br /> and to threatened and endangered species were put under"standards",but most of the <br /> guidelines will still work under the 1982 rule as Guidelines, Thurman said. <br /> In addition, following the 1982 rule the designated"responsible official"will be the <br /> Regional Forester instead of the Forest Supervisor. There is also more prescribed <br /> analysis related to timber-harvesting. The 1982 rule required an E.I.S, which was already <br /> being included by the San Juan because it is required for planning on BLM lands. <br /> Other,more major changes involve wildlife and fisheries. There is a return to <br /> "management indicator species"vs. "species of interest"and"species of concern", as <br /> well as a return to "maintaining viable populations"of vulnerable species. <br /> Mark said he would have liked to have provided the Water Roundtable members with <br /> draft material in advance of this meeting,but the draft is still under review in the <br /> Regional Office and the opportunity for the Roundtable to suggest changes in specific <br /> content will not re-open until the draft is released to the public. The most important <br /> focus now is the draft-to-final stage. Mark said it is critical for the Roundtable to be able <br /> to continue meaningful dialogue on the draft Plan during this stage. <br /> Thurman said because the Forest Service Regional Office wanted another review of the <br /> draft Plan since the change in planning rules, the release of the draft Plan and related <br /> NEPA documents has been delayed from its original timetable. Now, the goal is to have <br /> 2 <br />